Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Climate Change Could Wipe Out a Third of Parasite Species, Study Finds (nytimes.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled, alternative source): Recently, scientists carried out the first large-scale study of what climate change may do to the world's much-loathed parasites. The team came to a startling conclusion: as many as one in three parasite species may face extinction in the next century. As global warming raises the planet's temperature, the researchers found, many species will lose territory in which to survive. Some of their hosts will be lost, too. Researchers have begun carefully studying the roles that parasites play. They make up the majority of the biomass in some ecosystems, outweighing predators sharing their environments by a factor of 20 to 1. For decades, scientists who studied food webs drew lines between species -- between wildebeest and the grass they grazed on, for example, and between the wildebeest and the lions that ate them. In a major oversight, they didn't factor in the extent to which parasites feed on hosts. As it turns out, as much as 80 percent of the lines in a given food web are links to parasites. They are big players in the food supply.

Some researchers had already investigated the fate of a few parasite species, but Colin J. Carlson, lead author of the study and a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues wanted to get a global view of the impact of climate change. Some kinds won't lose much in a warming world, the study found. For instance, thorny-headed worms are likely to be protected because their hosts, fish and birds, are common and widespread. But other types, such as fleas and tapeworms, may not be able to tolerate much change in temperature; many others infect only hosts that are facing extinction, as well. In all, roughly 30 percent of parasitic species could disappear, Mr. Carlson concluded. The impact of climate change will be as great or greater for these species as for any others studied so far. The study has been published in Science Advances.

144 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    study of what climate change may do to the world's much-loathed parasites. The team came to a startling conclusion: as many as one in three parasite species may face extinction in the next century

    So, once chance in three we get rid of the lawyers?

    Could be worth it then.

    1. Re:so... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      Messing with ecosystems can have unexpected consequences. You might get a threefold increase of politicians or an epidemic of myxomatosis resistant middle managers.

      Better the devil you know.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:so... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

      I was going to say lobbyists. But that's good too.

      --
      Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    3. Re: so... by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      15 years later, climate is the same

      The same? What the fuck man? Are you living in a basement? I'm 27 years old living in southern Finland, and the climate most definitely is not 'the same' as it used to be when I was a kid. Winters start a lot later in general. It's normal to have a winter here or there that's warmer and gets less snow, but in since the weather is more unstable now and each year tends to be on average hotter than the last, with nearly every year in the 2000s breaking records, the snow doesn't stay on the ground but melts, which obviously in the long term is doing damage to plants and wildlife whose natural cycle has evolved to deal with proper winter. Looking at meteorological data for Helsinki in the 2000s 13 years have been warmer than the average, while the remaining 3 have been extremely cold, several times colder than the average. Because of those 3 extremely cold winters the average temp has 'only' gone up by 0,5 celsius here in Helsinki but that's an absurdly high figure for less than 2 decades. This essentially means there are no 'normal' winters anymore, where we get a steady amount of snow throughout the winter, It's either bleakishly warm moist and dark, with little or no snow, or extremely fucking cold with 10s of centimeters of snow fucking up all transit and traffic.

      This is what climate science has predicted all along: increase in extreme weather on both ends of the scale, and it is most certainly seen - and felt. here. The meteorologists predict that if this keeps going, by the time I'm in my 50s southern Finland may see very little if any snowfall at all during the winter months, which is a dramatic shift for the environment as well as for the mental well being of people (snow coverage reflects light which offsets the darkness of the northern wintertime when we get nearly no sunlight. Without any snow, most of the daytime is essentially black as night during winter months, which leads to increased fatigue and depression).

      At the same time globally there are more storms, more flooding and in certain regions increased droughts.

      Like damn, it really takes a record amount of stupidity to look at the climate data now and proclaim the climate 'is the same', when people my age can already spot the difference with their own eyes.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    4. Re: so... by Kiuas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Looking at meteorological data [ilmatieteenlaitos.fi] for Helsinki in the 2000s 13 years have been warmer than the average, while the remaining 3 have been extremely cold,

      I should clarify that the numbers I used were for winters only. If you look at averages for the entire year, the change is slightly less but still extremely noticeable considering the timeframe: 0,37 degrees warmer than the average.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    5. Re:so... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Yep...if they'd get rid of the fscking mosquitos, I say "raise the temps"!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re: so... by thereitis · · Score: 2

      Species disappearing, species migrating north as the climate gets warmer, massive ice shelves breaking off. There's plenty of evidence out there if you take the time to look and listen.

    7. Re: so... by thereitis · · Score: 1
      I was thinking more about Changing climate brings ticks, Lyme disease into Canada

      "York University researchers are warning that climate change is causing the country to become increasingly habitable to the blood-sucking bugs, which migrate by clinging to travelling birds and deer. Jianhong Wu, the director of the York Institute for Health Research, says the tick population will grow exponentially in the coming years in many parts of Ontario."

    8. Re: so... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      In Indiana the summers have been slightly cooler than my youth and the winters not so cold. Snow is about the same, but before my time there was a day where the snow was as high as the roof.

    9. Re: so... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Al Gore In 2005: "Within the decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro." Kilimanjaro In 2015

      Now riddle me this: If global warming is such an existential threat that we need need to get as much clean energy online as quickly as possible, why did the Obama administration put steep tariffs on Chinese solar panels?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re: so... by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      I live at roughly the same latitude as Finland, and I call BS on your anedotal evidence of climate change over 20 years. Methinks this is a strong case of confirmation bias with all the global warming stories.

      For anyone who actually lives in the north, you'll know winter is driven almost exclusively by sunlight, or the lack thereof as you approach winter months. The amount of light hitting our area of earth has not changed at all during this period, and actual temperature changes are so slight there no physical way you notice them change over twenty years. Nothing, absolutely nothing is going to change the fact that in December we only get ~6 hours of sunlight (at a very sharp angle), and it will be extremely cold. More lies and sensationalism, which the climate debate can do without.

    11. Re: so... by MisterFnortner · · Score: 1

      The plural of anecdote is not data.

    12. Re: so... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      To help US solar panel manufacturers, keeping an important capability for the US, and preventing the Chinese from driving people out of business and then raising their costs. Free trade is overall good, but there are exceptions, such as when it prevents someone from getting monopoly power.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re: so... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Exactly where do you live? Finland/s pretty far north.

      As one who lives at 45N, winters have changed considerably since when I was young. For example, winter rain is now fairly common. When the song "White bird in a golden cage, in the winter rain" was going around, it seemed odd because it almost never rained in winter.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re: so... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      That isn't going to do us any favors in the global market, where China can easily take business away from US suppliers. Instead what the US should have done is match any of China's subsidies.

    15. Re: so... by SandWyrm · · Score: 1

      Yes, the climate is changing. It's always been changing since the Earth was made/accreted. We've known for a long time from the geologic record that wild swings in climate are possible in as little as 20 years, and that we've been living in an uncharacteristically stable period, temp-wise. Ice ages happen. Seas rise and fall. Volcanoes erupt and wipe away a summer every once in a while.

      We also know that in North America, we've been living in an unusually wet period too. It's usually much drier.

      So accept it. The Earth's climate isn't stable. We might be adding or subtracting a degree here and there, but one volcano eruption can easily undo whatever we might geo-engineer to "fix" things. Assuming that we even know how to "fix" the climate instead of just making things worse.

    16. Re: so... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      But saving the planet is far more important than any temporary trade problem. Obama is willing to sacrifice our children's future for a fleeting advantage for US manufacturing? It sounds like something Trump would do.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    17. Re:so... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      i was thinking more like "sapiens" ... all in all the worst thing to happen to the planet since the moon got evicted i suppose

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    18. Re: so... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I take it you don't like the free market.

      The US has been subsidizing solar panels in order to get them going. China is subsidizing them to get a monopoly position.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re: so... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I happen to believe that the US can do things, such as produce solar panels. Obama wanted a domestic solar power industry, so we weren't as reliant on China. You don't know what effect this will have forty years down the line. You really don't.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re: so... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Free market means prices are governed by the forces of supply and demand as opposed to laws/regulations. Subsidies will impact prices, but they don't regulate them. Historically, tariffs are quite destructive.

    21. Re: so... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is "America First"? Do you people even listen to yourselves? Fuck America. America is not the solution, America is the problem.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  2. Would you really miss... by Templer421 · · Score: 1

    Any of them?

    1. Re:Would you really miss... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think people are worried that one of the parasites wiped out might be humans.

    2. Re:Would you really miss... by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Would you really miss any of them?"

      Sure. Tapeworms make great pets - they go where you go, eat what you eat, they're quiet, not messy, etc. Much less work than other pets.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Would you really miss... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure. Tapeworms make great pets - they go where you go, eat what you eat, they're quiet, not messy, etc.

      They can also help you lose weight. Some types of parasitic worms suppress the immune system, and can be used to treat autoimmune disorders, including Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis, and asthma.

    4. Re: Would you really miss... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Well thats certainly the hope of most liberals it seems, as they constantly evolve new models for enslaving and killing humans on a massive scale.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Would you really miss... by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good joke, of course, but more seriously, we shouldn't be too dismissive of the role played by any major part of the ecosystems, when we don't fully understand the situation. Just as a rather well reported example, there are several indications that the rise in allergies may have a lot to do with the elimination of internal parasites.

    6. Re: Would you really miss... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And the money whore conservatives are happy to kill every other living thing on the planet, just so they can get something shiny for themselves.

    7. Re:Would you really miss... by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      That's a thin thread to hang your hopes on son.

  3. warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While we're on the topic, a new study just came outhttp://dailycaller.com/2017/06...">fully admitting the models are wrong. They've over-predicted the amount of warming we've seen, compared to reality. Here's a link to the paper.

    So it's reasonable to assume that the worst predictions from AGW are not going to happen.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:warming models wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Fully admitting the models are wrong" is curious - no, make that furious - way to spin that study.

      Models are made, data is gathered and compared with the model, models get refined. Welcome to science. That doesn't "admit the models are wrong", merely that there are variables - many of them, in this case - that we don't know with accuracy.

      This particular paper suggests - rather tentatively - that "model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations." That may or may not be correct, but it suggests one way in which the models could be refined.

      This is one of the basic tactics of disinformation: misrepresent a legitimate study, secure in the knowledge that everyone who agrees with your point of view will just believe you and not even click on your links (the first of which directs straight back to this page, by the way).

      "It's reasonable to assume that the worst predictions from AGW are not going to happen" - now, that is indeed arguable, because "the worst predictions" are made by, frankly, lunatics. Remember "The Day After Tomorrow"? Movie published by Fox (yes, that Fox)? That's not going to happen. There you go, you're vindicated. But still spreading disinformation.

    2. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Fully admitting the models are wrong" is curious - no, make that furious - way to spin that study.

      Well, we can actually put a number on it, and in fact the paper does (if you'd actually read it, which you didn't), here is a quote from the paper:

      "The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty- first century results is low (between zero and about 9%)."

      So there it is. Fully quantified at 9% for your enjoyment.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:warming models wrong by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Informative

      You linked to the daily caller. You may as well just called up Scott Pruitt.

      Since you clearly don't understand how models work (any model), let me clue you in: They are all wrong. Every single one of them. There is no such thing as a perfect model. Never has been, never will be. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a model for a bridge or a model for the climate. Every single model has error bars, caveats, assumptions, etc., which is why models are used for GUIDANCE and not PREDICTION. The predictions are made from models, additional data, additional analysis, etc. from EXPERTS IN THE FIELD. Models are TOOLS, not the end all be all of scientific analysis.

      Now that we got that out of the way, the paper does not say anything about the models being completely wrong. The paper is examining several different aspects of potential sources that lead to temperatures increasing at a slightly slower rate than the models predicted over the past decade or so. The issues range from potential systemic biases in the data sets to various different aspects of internal variability that the models don't currently capture.

      At no point do they claim that the models "are completely wrong". Nor are any current results invalidated. This is a paper discussing possible improvements to the models and/or data analysis to improve overall predictions.

      You either didn't read the paper, or you need to really work on your reading comprehension.

      --
      ~X~
    4. Re:warming models wrong by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None other than the Father of AGW's name is one that paper, Michael Mann.

      Sorry, but not even Michael Mann gets to skip peer review.

      Why are you in such a hurry? The truth will come out. In the meantime, just relax, calm down, and have a cup of cocoa.

    5. Re:warming models wrong by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So there it is. Fully quantified at 9% for your enjoyment.

      And ribbed for her pleasure?

      Sorry, couldn't resist such a wide-open straight-line. :D

      I've been saying the models have been unable to even relatively accurately recreate *past* climate changes with all the data available. What the hell makes anyone think using those models' predictions on future climate as the basis for making massive changes to society that *will* cost many, many lives is even sane, never mind being a 'good idea'?

      Humans do not yet have even a significant fraction of the computing power required to model the Earth's climate. It's a massively-chaotic system with more significant variables than we even know about to attempt to measure and include in said models. It would be a much simpler problem to predict the future individual movements of every single fish in the Great Lakes over the next century.

      This is all about ideologies, politics, agendas, money, and power. Science takes a distant back seat.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    6. Re:warming models wrong by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      First... as the other guy says they don't "fully admit the models are wrong". They adjust them to be better.

      And the error in the models is lower than the degree to which they are correct.

      It would be likely saying- "HA! IRMA didn't hit Florida as a Cat 5! The models are wrong! I saw the meteorologist say IRMA wasn't a Category 5 hurricane- ergo he was admitting he was wrong!"

      Okay... but IRMA did hit about where they said and did about the degree of damage they said.

      Same with global warming. It's mostly an established fact at this point.

      Just recently the 38 dissenting papers failed peer review (basic errors, faulty methodology, couldn't be repeated by independent testers).

      The temperature is going up. Rain events will be more intense. Climate bands will widen from the equator. Some areas will get so hot that they will be uninhabitable.

      And there's risk of a frozen methane release runaway.. but hey- if that happens we are all dead anyway- so why worry.
      It's a small risk.. .I mean how often does someone win the lottery?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    7. Re: warming models wrong by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes and no. First, modeling a chaotic system is damned hard and is never going to give 100% accurate results. Second, if I am understanding properly, it may mean that it is going to be worse. Probably not, but maybe. Rember the first point, it's damned hard.

      I think it reasonable to assume they are good for broad predictions of trends and any very specific estimations are stupid. Yeah, climate is changing. No, we're probably not going to die as a direct result. We can crawl faster than the oceans will rise. We will adapt. It's what we do.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:warming models wrong by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So it's reasonable to assume that the worst predictions from AGW are not going to happen.

      That's because they're worst predictions. You do a worst case, a best case and another one - middle or likely case - that lies somewhere between.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re: warming models wrong by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      We can crawl faster than the oceans will rise.

      Where are we going to crawl to?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re: warming models wrong by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Inland.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re: warming models wrong by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Other than a few islands, we have plenty of space. It will take many years for the oceans to rise.

      I already live in the mountains. Humans will move and adapt, it's what we have always done. The climate is changing and we aren't going to stop releasing CO2. You might as well make your plans now, or not worry about it as it is likely to not actually impact you greatly. You'll be dead before much changes.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:warming models wrong by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      maybe you should read this "A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus"...
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    13. Re: warming models wrong by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      What happens if inland is a different country. Invade?

    14. Re: warming models wrong by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Try crawling onto my hill and enjoy a shell to the head.

      I decided to accept AGW and build my home on a hilltop. Anyone deciding to reject is and build at the shore has made his bed. Now lie in it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:warming models wrong by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless you've been saying that in a peer-reviewed paper in a journal of good standing, it matters naught. As your last sentence demonstrates your respect for the scientific method, you might want to apply it to your own criticism of the findings. To not do so is incredibly hypocritical, and only serves to make you look like someone wishing their conclusions are correct, which I'm sure you're not.

    16. Re:warming models wrong by Curupira · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but not even Michael Mann gets to skip peer review.

      True, but at least he directed good movies and series like The Last of the Mohicans, Heat, Miami Vice...

    17. Re:warming models wrong by BlueStrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've been saying the models have been unable to even relatively accurately recreate *past* climate changes with all the data available.

      Unless you've been saying that in a peer-reviewed paper in a journal of good standing, it matters naught. As your last sentence demonstrates your respect for the scientific method, you might want to apply it to your own criticism of the findings. To not do so is incredibly hypocritical, and only serves to make you look like someone wishing their conclusions are correct, which I'm sure you're not.

      Then I'm sure you can cite the climate models that accurately track past climate change without massive adjustments to the raw data.

      [crickets]

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    18. Re: warming models wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Physicist here. Models are not wrong, but rather incomplete. A good physical model when simulating an experiment will account for >80% of a measurement's real value. That means when done right, errors come from 3rd and 4th order effects that are either not readily simulated or are seemingly random effects. If the climate models are this wrong, then they are incomplete and further study is warranted to increase accuracy of the monte carlo calculations, distributions feeding models, or partial differential equations representing the multiphysics. That doesn't mean ignore potential effects in the meantime.

    19. Re: warming models wrong by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Ah, yet another buffoon who thinks humans are the only thing that matters.

    20. Re:warming models wrong by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Um, no.

      https://www.skepticalscience.c...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    21. Re:warming models wrong by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Which is why the paper goes on to conclude that it wasn't just "internal variability" but also external forcings that contributed to the discrepancy.

      So in addition to the ENSO cycle going through an extended period of transferring heat into the oceans, the paper highlights cooling from a number of volcanic eruptions, AND a long & anomalously low period of solar activity, AND higher than expected human sulphate emissions - which all combined to temporarily slow warming beyond the models' most-likely predictions. And we've already seen average temperatures shoot up recently as those external forcings reduce again.

      But given that any of those anomalous short-term forcings could just as easily swing the other way in the future - resulting in average temperatures temporarily beyond the models' predictions - the long-term trend is not significantly affected.

      The only "fault" in the models was that they did not (and could not) take ALL possible random forcings into account, but relied on any short-term anomalies to average out over time. Which surprised nobody that knows how such models work, but still seems to be a popular straw man for deniers to wave around.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    22. Re:warming models wrong by conquistadorst · · Score: 1

      "Fully admitting the models are wrong" is curious - no, make that furious - way to spin that study.

      Models are made, data is gathered and compared with the model, models get refined. Welcome to science. That doesn't "admit the models are wrong", merely that there are variables - many of them, in this case - that we don't know with accuracy.

      Reading the way you phrased this slapped my brain kind of funny. It's almost as some people treat science like another religion instead of science being just science? When it comes to religion, If you point out something contradictory/wrong in a religious text, that's blasphemy and creates a visceral reaction. The religion's truth is at stake. It creates a shouting match and people hate each other, use it to discredit one another, because the whole thing is at risk of toppling. Science on the other hand is a tad different. You point out something contradictory/wrong in a scientific text, it still creates a visceral reaction from academics that published it, but it's expected. The scientific truth is at stake but if it's found to be false it's just replaced with something that may not be better but at least it's more accurate. They still have a shouting match and hate each other, they still try to discredit one another, but the "wars" never leave the sphere of funding and academic backstabbing. The whole thing is never going to topple, nor is it ever at risk of toppling. But it seems like the people that attack parts of science are under the impression that it will topple?

    23. Re:warming models wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't you think you should maybe *cite* these alleged "massive adjustments", since you're such a champion of science over ideologies & all?

      Why don't you simply provide an example of an accurate past-climate model? Would that not totally invalidate his post?

      You are not intellectually honest. Even if the GP poster provided a link to a citation, you would find some reason to reject it.

      AGW is religion and does not tolerate non-believers or apostasy. Half a millennia ago, you and others like you would have been cheering for the Roman Catholic Church to punish Galileo.

    24. Re: warming models wrong by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      And what's going to crawl with you?

      Plants, if one notices, are not very good at crawling, especially if the soil nutrients, temperatures, pH, nitrogen contents are not conducive to sprouting seedlings.

      Animals can go pretty much where they please.

      Will breakfast be there, as well?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    25. Re: warming models wrong by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This is a good point.

      Few life forms are weaponized owners of flora and fauna.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    26. Re: warming models wrong by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I already live in the mountains. Humans will move and adapt

      Just not onto your patch, right? Sure, you're a tough guy. Some of them might be tougher.

      it's what we have always done.

      And it's always caused conflict. Look at the waves of Huns, Mongols, Turks etc. who periodically swept out of central Asia.

      And the world was a lot less crowded then.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re: warming models wrong by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      LOL. Even internet tough guys need to sleep.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    28. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You linked to the daily caller.,

      I linked to the actual paper. Learn To Read. The models are wrong: many papers have shown over the past few years. You don't realize it because you attack strawmen instead of reading the actual paper I linked to.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And the error in the models is lower than the degree to which they are correct.

      What are you even talking about? The confusion you are in indicates you didn't actually read the paper.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re: warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Second, if I am understanding properly, it may mean that it is going to be worse.

      Not likely. Every model vastly overpredicted the amount of warming.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Good point. The most likely case at this point seems to be "not much to worry about."
      The reasonable course of action would be to continue improving our technology, like electric cars (which are coming along quite nicely), and stop with the propaganda that global warming is going to kill us. Because it's not.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And what do you think the consensus is? That climate models are correct? Can you even describe the consensus in your own words, or do you just parrot things you don't understand?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    33. Re:warming models wrong by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      I'm all for science, but peer review is broken. This is one of many articles on the problem if you care to google.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    34. Re:warming models wrong by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Why do people continue to point to peer review as if it's functional. It's not, and there are plenty of articles pointing to the problems with it.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    35. Re:warming models wrong by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      But hey, as long as the killer hurricanes are predominately hitting those states where the hardcore deniers are sitting in... Let Darwin take care of the problem

      One word for you: Asshole

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    36. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      You didn't even read the paper. It's not random forcings, the model takes into account volcanos. No one would write a paper saying, "Models are wrong because we had more volcanos than expected." This paper doesn't say that either, it says the problems are due to "systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations."

      Next time you should actually read the paper before replying.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    37. Re:warming models wrong by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      Hurricanes? What was it everybody was saying when the Congressman carried a snowball into the legislature? Ahh, yes!!

      "That's WEATHER, not CLIMATE, stupid!!"

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    38. Re:warming models wrong by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      read the paper referred to in the guardian's article

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    39. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Which one, this one?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re: warming models wrong by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Ah! Heh... No. ;-) Every model that you've probably *seen* has predicted more warming than has taken place.

      I've downloaded and run a few of the models and made an almost-academic study of it. I was actually just curious, as I'm very familiar with modeling chaotic systems - namely traffic. And, depending on the settings, you'll get different results. The _media_ only publishes certain findings and papers only highlight certain findings.

      Sorry, I may have been a bit confused. Yes, it's not likely, but not really impossible. I'm going to suggest that the models are inherently inaccurate and have seen them vary wildly with just a few trivial changes. I find that last part the most concerning. I do understand chaos theory (and knew Lorenz personally, as well as sorta worked with him) and can see how it would happen that way - but the mild variances were making inconsistent results.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    41. Re: warming models wrong by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Oh, they'll be free to use "my patch" because I'll be long dead before it gets to be a major problem.

      Really, you'll be okay. The Huns and the likes didn't have things like public transportation, cars, and broad communication to aid in migration.

      To be clear, I believe the climate is changing, and warming. I believe the oceans are going to rise. I don't believe we're going to do much to stop it, largely because we're a pretty stupid species. You might just as well plan on the inevitable instead of trying to instill panic. You've got plenty of time. You'll be okay.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    42. Re: warming models wrong by KGIII · · Score: 1

      No, I think that it's largely irrelevant. We're not going to stop it. You might just as well adjust your expectations to suit, unless you can somehow control the world. If you can, then I'd suggest you do something to stop it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    43. Re: warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Here's a graph. See for yourself.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    44. Re: warming models wrong by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nah, probably not on large scales. The various countries have various heights. They're not going to all be moving at once. We're not going to wake up and have 3 months to move our shit to high ground. Climate change doesn't work like that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    45. Re: warming models wrong by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, those are a select few. Each model can be tweaked and each data set can be adjusted. There's hundreds of thousands of results.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    46. Re:warming models wrong by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Put it on the pile.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    47. Re:warming models wrong by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      I read the paper (at least the part that wasn't paywalled), which is how I know you deliberately left out fairly important qualifiers from your quote, like where it says the problems are "partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings". The other parts are due to internal variations like ENSO, as I said.

      And maybe you missed the bit where it describes those external forcings (emphases mine):

      ..both internal variability and external forcing contribute to the ‘slowdown’. The externally-forced contribution is due to the combined cooling effects of a succession of moderate early twenty-first century eruptions, a long and anomalously low solar minimum during the last solar cycle, increased atmospheric burdens of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols, and a decrease in stratospheric water vapour.

      So yeah, the models didn't incorporate correct forecasts on eruptions, anomalous solar minimums, and human emissions - perhaps because it's kind of difficult to predict those things, so the models are run with a selection of the most likely conditions. No surprise if unlikely conditions produce anomalous results, but that's why the model runs are updated with the new data.

      The points I was trying to make is that the models don't even try to predict things like volcanoes or solar variations, but are run with our best estimates of those forcings, so you can't blame the models if those estimates are off. And also that external forcing anomalies can just as easily swing the other way, so they generally average out in the long term. Climatologists know this well, but deniers just love to shout "broken models!" at any variation regardless of cause.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    48. Re: warming models wrong by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      There will be migration from the coast to inland and if recent history is anything to go by there won't be a warm welcome.

    49. Re: warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Alright, fair enough. So what do you think the chances are that the warming will be more than predicted in those models (at least, in the graphs that were actually released).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    50. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So do you admit there are systemic deficiencies in the models or not? If you do not, then you've misunderstood the paper.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    51. Re:warming models wrong by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Of course the models are "deficient", in that there are a whole range of external forcings that they can only approximate, in addition to internal variability. They're never going to be perfect; there are always going to be discrepancies in parameters like human sulphate emissions or the deviation from average levels of volcanic activity in a given year. That's why they do multiple runs with a range of likely values, and update those runs as we find out more. The paper was written as a part of the effort to identify which particular external parameters are responsible for the observed discrepancies.

      But that's a long way from "fully admitting them to be wrong", as you claimed. I'm sure you realise (even if the Daily Caller doesn't) that short-term imperfections do not make models useless, so I'm assuming you're misrepresenting this for a reason. Or perhaps you're just unaware that recent years' temperatures have now caught up to (and in some cases exceeded) the most likely business-as-usual projections from even 30 year old model runs - entirely validating the oft-made point that while climate models cannot predict all short-term variations, it usually averages out in the long run.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    52. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you linked to a blog to refute a peer reviewed paper that came out after the blog was written. Don't do that.

      btw regarding your earlier post about eruptions, anomalous solar minimums, aerosols, water vapor, etc, those are all included in the "internal variation" category of the paper (for example, the model takes into account solar cycles, but of course they are not necessarily going to happen at the same time in the model as in reality. The difference between reality and the model's prediction of solar cycles is the internal variation). The probability that all those factors combined are the explanation for the model deviation is very low.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    53. Re:warming models wrong by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      You didn't even look at the link, did you? Nor was I "refuting" the paper - you seem to be projecting your own idea of motives rather than reading what I'm saying. The link merely offered updated comparisons between model projections from various dates, and current observations of actual temperatures, such as in this graph. If you believe that's in error, do please cite something.

      If you have a link to a non-paywalled version of the paper then I'd be interested to see more detail, but the quote I showed above specifically describes the solar variations, volcanism etc as the externally-forced contribution, and clearly distinct from internal variability (maybe read it more closely). The models use long-term averages & expected values for these forcings, so e.g. an actual volcanic eruption (or no eruptions at all) will of course give different results - potentially far outside normal model parameters, if the eruption is a significant one.

      Perhaps this is the source of your confusion over the paper? If you think otherwise, please cite what makes you believe that.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    54. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      You didn't even look at the link, did you?

      I've read enough realclimate.org to know it's just a blog, about as good as wattsupwiththat in quality.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    55. Re:warming models wrong by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Except that only one of them has, y'know, real practicing climatologists citing peer-reviewed studies.

      But it's no wonder you seem to be misinterpreting things if you won't even look at what's being said.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    56. Re:warming models wrong by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Their blogs are not peer reviewed. And for a good reason: they wouldn't pass peer review.
      Stick to the papers, you are definitely capable of higher level thinking than blogs.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  4. Anyone who suggests you could do without x species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is a moron we can do without.

    I am ashamed of what Conservatism has become, as a human being, part of a web of life on this 1 planet that we know of with any life at all.

  5. It All Makes Sense Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    So this is why liberals are always against climate change. A third of them could die from it!

    1. Re:It All Makes Sense Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeh because it not like the red states are parasites of the blue states, oh wait, they are.

    2. Re:It All Makes Sense Now by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I'm a photosynthesizing progressive, dammit!

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:It All Makes Sense Now by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Informative

      The facts say otherwise:

      http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/26/report-proves-stupid-red-states-parasites.html

      Conservative = Parasite

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    4. Re: It All Makes Sense Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fuck you blue states and your federal government, we red states don't need it. Well, we want it now, what with the hurricane, and maybe border wall money too - funny how it wasn't worth spending state money on, but fuck you to Sodom once the hurricane season is over, you hypocritical leeches!

    5. Re:It All Makes Sense Now by hyades1 · · Score: 2

      1. Holy crap there are many other sites that report exactly the same thing. That's because the numbers come from places like the Congressional Budget Office, which don't play politics with their numbers.

      2. It's actually pretty much exactly that simple. Time after time, the Blue States elect more liberal, more progressive governments than the Red States. They also contribute more to the country.

      3. A lot of those Red States are even more dependent on federal government support, especially for agriculture. And the numbers don't even include Red Staters who graze their cattle on public land and mine/drill in public parks.

      So the situation is likely even more lopsided than presented in the link. Red Staters are even more parasitical than that.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    6. Re: It All Makes Sense Now by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Cool your fucking jets.

      We've decided that we do need a wall between Texas and Mexico, but the Texas part is the coast line and the Mexico part is the goddam Gulf.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:It All Makes Sense Now by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      This might cause you a lot of confusion, but:

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/04/solved-why-poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    8. Re:It All Makes Sense Now by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      I knew I was into the deep bullshit when Forbes tried to claim states with the worst health care, worst education, worst life expectancy, lowest average wage, worst...well, worst just about everything were somehow better off.

      Thanks, my friend. That's the funniest thing I've read today.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    9. Re: It All Makes Sense Now by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      So ... you're going to blame the next hurricane on Mexico, make them pay for it?

      That's the route to a land war on your border. I'm just listening to some lectures on the way that turned out for the Romans when they started to fuck with the Visigoths. Didn't end well.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    10. Re: It All Makes Sense Now by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Dude (or dudette, as may apply), read current events about the Gulf coast of Texas, OK?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    11. Re: It All Makes Sense Now by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      What - the hurricanes? Shrug - so what? Only a few dozens dead. A few hundred billion dollars damages, and most of that is high property prices, not actual value. Nothing major - at least not compared with the land war that your government is stoking up the propaganda for.

      What's the current body count in the equally nearby floods south of the Himalayas? 1600 and still climbing?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    12. Re: It All Makes Sense Now by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... equally nearby ...

      Yes, Texas is right next to Arkansas, the state that hosts the Himalayan mountains.

      You're trolling.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  6. Re:Anyone who suggests you could do without x spec by tylersoze · · Score: 2

    I agree completely...except for mosquitos and cockroaches, fuck those guys.

  7. Wu Tang Clan is nothing to fuck with by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    One of the parasites has already disappeared:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Re:Anyone who suggests you could do without x spec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Cockroaches and mosquitoes are food for the things that the things that you eat, eat. Well, it's complicated. The point is nobody eats without everybody eating.

    Except the fungii that will own the entire doomed planet long after we're gone, they will do whatever the hell they want.

  9. Just an idea by xfizik · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this include banksters, politicians and patent trolls?

  10. Will rentiers be among them? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

    Will rentiers be among them?

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  11. Do Humans count as parasites? by dcrisp · · Score: 1

    Do Humans count as parasites? Maybe humans will be wiped out.

  12. Re:Anyone who suggests you could do without x spec by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    Is a moron we can do without.

    We are doing alright without Variola major .

  13. Re: Anyone who suggests you could do without x spe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What about these parasites that nest in children eyes and make them blind?
    Or all the other horrible ones you don't know about?

  14. Equal Opportunity Annihilation by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It might wipe out roughly 1/3 of hosts also, so it would generally "balance" out.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  15. Or.. with billions of individuals, they'll adapt. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    Fleas? I don't think so.

    Maybe specific fleas finely tuned to a particular animal.

    But fleas in general?

    My experience with climate change over the last 30 years is more bugs, more parasites, more diseases reaching in to my area from down south than used to.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  16. Re:Tragic by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    There are lots of species I'll try to save. Intestinal worms are not one of them.

    Oh, that's a shame

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  17. No problemo by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    " report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled,"

    Just clear your cookies and there's no paywall.

  18. Why marked troll? by Roodvlees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are climate alarmists so afraid to have an actual discussion that they must denounce anyone who disagrees as a troll?

    --
    Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    1. Re:Why marked troll? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      If the people willing to discuss science with scientists actually used the scientific method, you'd have a point. As it is, someone vomiting unfounded assertions does not scientific discourse make.

    2. Re: Why marked troll? by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Where are the disagreements that involve actual peer reviewed science?

    3. Re:Why marked troll? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The GP linked to an actual scientific paper, written by scientists. You are the one here vomiting unfounded assertions. Would you care to join the scientists and admit that the models are wrong?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re: Why marked troll? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The climate models are wrong. Peer reviewed, actual science.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re: Why marked troll? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Your logical fallacy is 'appeal to authority'.

      It's not an appeal to authority when the authority is actually an expert on the subject at hand.

      Stevie Wonder's opinion on Kodachrome vs Ektachrome isn't comparable to Annie Leibovitz's.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re: Why marked troll? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What do true Scotsmen think about climate change?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re: Why marked troll? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Your logical fallacy is assuming a conclusion. You assume that AGW isn't happening, and to keep your delusions intact you have to find explanations for what all the scientists say. You're also irrationally afraid (or something) of Leftists, and find them a very convenient scapegoat.

      Your last paragraph is a form of "proof by blatant assertion".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re: Why marked troll? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's no requirement that students embrace AGW. Students are expected to embrace science, and the science says that AGW is going on and it's serious. For similar reasons, you're not going to get a physics degree unless you embrace gravity. If a student can come up with a reasonable argument that AGW isn't happening, that student would be highly successful.

      You obviously know very little of science or scientists. Scientists love to disagree with each other. You can't get a scientific consensus without some pretty darn convincing evidence.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Why marked troll? by Roodvlees · · Score: 1

      I'm happy to have a discussion with anyone on any topic, even if I think they're a climate alarmist.
      I think climate panic is bullshit because those conclusions and predictions have been countered by the science:
      http://petitionproject.org/gw_...

      Furthermore most fear mongering climate predictions follow the following pattern:
      1. Make a vague prediction
      2. Get lots of attention
      3. Make new prediciton(s) before it turns out the previous one is false.
      https://www.thenewamerican.com...

      It's very similar to Christian preachers predicting the end of the world and then getting more victims when it doesn't happen.
      Only the 'predictions' are far worse, they don't include a verifiable outcome or time when it will supposedly occur.
      Thus they should be rejected out of hand.

      It's interesting that the media are having more and more trouble pushing this propaganda:
      1. The term has changed from global warming to climate change, did anyone explain you why? Climate change is redundant because the climate is defined as the average weather over the past 30 years. So it will always change, by definition.
      2. They almost never show charts of how environmental weather extremes changed over time. They probably know it would prove their bullshit wrong. Like the hurricane energy that hasn't increased: http://www.globalwarming.org/2...
      3. They never talk about the positives of fossil fuels or CO2. Like with fossil fuels enabling us to defend ourselves against the climate, greatly reducing the number of climate deaths, while the population grows. Or how CO2 made the planet greener: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/.... When people are always and only telling you about one side of an argument, it's a hint of propaganda.

      Please honestly investigate this stuff, don't just believe what the establishment tells you.

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
  19. Re:Anyone who suggests you could do without x spec by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Is a moron we can do without.

    I am ashamed of what Conservatism has become, as a human being, part of a web of life on this 1 planet that we know of with any life at all.

    We seem to do OK without smallpox.

  20. Re:Not possible by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 1

    At least you're not denying that it's happening.

    If you could understand even just the summary, you'd know parasites play a big role in the food chain. So it's not an unequivocal good thing.

    Maybe it's time you stop getting your news from headlines.

    --
    Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
  21. Re:Anyone who suggests you could do without x spec by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Not really, have you seen how many humans there are now?

    If you eliminate one predator species, their prey will multiply uncontrollably.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Re:Tragic by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Only because they're not fluffy. Specist!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. Re:Not possible by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Bad? Hell no. It's one of the best things that happened to the Earth in its more recent history. Finally it can return to the state it was in a couple million years ago when it was warmer on this planet, with a higher CO2 concentration that made those wonderful, huge forests possible that could be found all over the place. We might even see those deserts vanish (yes, despite warmer climate, it will probably also be more humid and generally more beneficial for plant growth).

    Ok, we won't see it. But maybe if there is some more intelligent life in this universe that makes experiments like this with some planet other than their own might.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. No more fleas or tapeworms? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Oh no! Whatever will we do without fleas riding pets into our homes and forcing us to fumigate? Hartz could go out of business!

  25. Re:Anyone who suggests you could do without x spec by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Here it's not a problem with people being killed by something or someone but more one of people not being born. This is mostly due to people noticing troubling times ahead and refusing to propagate. Something you can observe in a few species that do not have young if it's likely that there will not be enough food for them to survive.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:Anyone who suggests you could do without x spec by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

    Indeed. Problem is that that re-balancing act might take millions of years and involve getting humans out of the equation.

    What many climate change critics and proponents get wrong is that environmentalism is about saving "nature" or the planet, but really it isn't. The planet doesn't care and will be just fine. Ten million years are nothing on a planetary scale and life will adapt to our pollution and destruction and go on even without us.
    What this is about is conserving the fragile ecosystem that humans managed to evolve and thrive in. We are not so resilient.

  27. Mosquitos are nearly useless by ThatNakedGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Mosquitoes do not make up a substantial part of any creatures diet. Even bats do not depend on mosquitoes. Bats eat beetles, wasps, and moths. Mosquitoes make up less than 1 percent of their total diet.
    Studies of areas where mosquitoes have been eliminated show no major ecological disruption. They are seasonal anyway. Mosquitoes (at least the ones that harm us) are a blight on the world and should be eliminated.

    1. Re: Mosquitos are nearly useless by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Which is more of a blight, mosquitoes or humans?

    2. Re:Mosquitos are nearly useless by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Studies of areas where mosquitoes have been eliminated show no major ecological disruption.

      Citation, please. Please be prepared to discuss bee and other insect populations.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:Mosquitos are nearly useless by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      That's what they said about the Native Americans. You'd think the fact that you're literally advocating genocide would bother you, but no, here we are.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Mosquitos are nearly useless by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      So your goddam Google is broken ...

      Mosquito Predators – what eats mosquitoes?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  28. Please, Tell me more by IMarvinTPA · · Score: 1

    Please, Tell me more about the extinction of fleas. I want to know if there are any downsides to this. Can we mitigate those?
    Can we get Ticks on the list too?

    --
    Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
  29. Re:Anyone who suggests you could do without x spec by Muros · · Score: 1

    We can do without humans. Frankly speaking, we can do without any particular species. Life will re-balance, it always has.

    And who exactly is this "we"?

  30. Not necessarily a total reduction in parasites by Misagon · · Score: 1

    What usually happens when one species is diminished is that another species takes its place.
    So, we may not get fewer parasites, only fewer species of parasites.

    Overall, when the Earth gets warmer, species from places that were warmer are likely to become more common in places that used to be colder, but now are not. That's not just parasites, but all types of insects, plants, animals and diseases.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  31. Wow by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Who wold have thought, then when the dodo died out, its parasites died out too.

  32. This is tough by shaitand · · Score: 1

    So either I change my ways and save the mosquitos and evil spouses or a big chunk of the world dies, coastlands reduce, and we all have to disgusting lab grown algae.... how long do I have to think about it?

  33. Dammit! by hduff · · Score: 1

    Now I itch all over . . .

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  34. Re:There are some for whom this could be bad news by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    And some who don't have a complete picture:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/04/solved-why-poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  35. Re:There are some for whom this could be bad news by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    As mentioned elsewhere, Forbes' claim that states with the lowest wages, the worst life expectancy, the worst education, the worst health care and the worst you-name-it are "better off" because the cost of living is sometimes a hair lower is both ridiculous and amusing.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.