Unless your local university is on the banks of the river where this dolphin lives, how is his opinion of any value?
Because humans have developed the function of long distance communication. Through the media, we are allowed to understand things that we may never have experienced in person before.
Your statement is somewhat redundant, as you might as well ask "why does anyone care about events occuring outside their immediate vicinity?" It's like saying, "should we care if Washington DC were to be bombed?" I don't personally live there, and I can't see it out my window. Just because something happened outside of a person's local region, doesn't somehow render their opinion on it completely void. The professor in question has been researching penguins and cetaceans in Asia and the South Pacific for over twenty years, I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.
I recently attended a lecture given by William Fyfe, who said that the coal that is burnt by households for cooking in China contains ridiculously high levels of arsenic, lead, and a bunch of other heavy metals, and that these poisons leak directly in the local waterways. If this is accurate, then I find it hard to imagine that the pollution had nothing to do with the dolphin's decline.
Furthermore, it sounds like the expedition hasn't actually completed their analysis of the water, the part you have quoted is merely a prediction (found here) :
In more than 30 samples of water and suspended particles a set of 260 organic substances, 20 trace metals, major ions and nutrients are currently being analyzed, and will be given to the chinese administration and be made available in an international scientific journal. Preliminary results will be commented on in a short report in spring 2007.
Concentrations of organic pollutants and trace metals in the Yangtze River are generally low with a few exceptions. The water loads, however, are enormous and dilute contaminating pollutants so that concentrations are kept low. None of the measured chemical parameters suggest acute toxicity for fish or mammals, however, long term exposure, synergistic effects of various pollutants, endocrine disruptors etc. were not investigated.
Notable perhaps is the fact that they mention that long term exposure wasn't inverstigated.
I've just contacted the associate professor in cetacean research at my local university, and asked specifically what the cause of the dolphin's extinction is. Apparently, the extinction is a combination of "pollution from industry, habitat loss due to damming, and incidental catch [i.e. fishing]". His words, not mine. I'd hope that he has a bit more knowledge about the issue than the journalists at CNN do.
On what basis do you support your assertion that the environment has been stable for that long? I have heard of two major global warming incidents, one in the middle ages and one about 5000 years ago. 10000 years ago was the last ice age.
I'm well aware of these incidents, it's why I pointedly referred to the last 9,000 out of 10,000 years... Furthermore, while solar and orbital fluctuations bias and unbalance an equilibrium, comets, asteroids, and volcanos (one of the other major cataclysms that cause global climate change) are often recovered from because the climate's system is in equilibrium. (i.e. volcanic ash, dust, etc eventually drops out of the sky, excess heat is absorbed by large bodies of water, or dissipates into space)
Also, I completely agree on the planting of trees, nothing could help our environment more. In fact, by turning CO2 in our atmosphere into condensed plant matter, we could prevent greater instability in our climate. A big problem at the moment is that large resources of coal are being burnt, and releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - this CO2 was extracted by the plants from the atmosphere over millions of years, and it's now being dumped straight back in all at once.
I understand your perspective, but "nature" hasn't been destroyed yet. Just because it's suffering severe stress to rebalance an equilibrium weather pattern doesn't mean we should hurry it along. Furthermore, in reply to your comment, "So what? It will be neither the first nor the last mass extinction.": mass extinctions are terribly damaging to the environment and to grace them with the "So what?" treatment is irresponsible. It takes a long time for "nature" to recover from any extinction - thousands on thousands of years in most cases.
Imagine if the earth's cattle all suddenly died from intolerable climate, or chickens all suddenly died out from extremely fast propagating disease vectors bearing bird flu - a lot of humans beings rely on these animals for sustenance for their milk or eggs, or for their meat products. I too hold human life far above animals, but that doesn't mean that I take their presence for granted.
Finally, I think it is the fact that environmentalists understand that the environment isn't static is the problem. Because they understand that the environment isn't static, they understand that global warming is a real, and dangerous, threat to future generations. What Earth had 10,000 years ago was a relatively stable environment that lasted in an equilibrium state for most of the last 9000 years. Mars, Venus, and all the other planets in our solar system exist in equilibrium climates, and what environmentalists are seeking to avoid is for Earth to enter into a similar inhospitable equilibrium.
A certainly see your point, but I was merely considering the predicament of other species who have less of an ability to migrate, and less adabtability that humans have due to technology and information.
I'll also point out that one of the large issues involved in global warming is that the disease malaria is carried by mosquitos. As the climate warms globally, these mosquitos will span greater distances - spreading malaria to communities that have not had to deal with malarial outbreaks, or have less resistance to malaria due to a lack of any significant anemic populations.
I for myself still think global warming could be nice, after the initial, inevitable adaptation pains. More crops, more habitable lands.
...more disease vectors, greater drought, more flooding, colder and longer winters, drier summers...
The list goes on. The fact that the issue has been "downgraded" is irrelevant. If we're still going to suffer 5 degrees increase in climate temperature, then the point is moot. Climate change is still happening, and its still a bad thing. I can see the evidence locally: the domestic livestock are delivering their young at the same time each year, but these days it's still frosting, and a lot of young die from the amniotic fluids (from their birth) freezing.
To add to (or clarify) your statement, it's worth mentioning that the literal meaning of "faith" is believing in something without proof of its existence. This is how science is opposed to faith, as it requires empirical evidence to function, whereas faith is based on abstracts that only exist in people's consciousness.
On a more general note, this points out that, there are actually two different creation stories in Genesis 1. Two different stories. Different things happen in different order on different days in them. If you insist on reading the bible literally, with no creative interpretation, then one of the two is wrong. You aren't even out of the first chapter of the Bible yet, and you already can't be strictly literal.
Or: you could just believe that both versions of Genesis are contradictory and wrong, and then just apply this manner of thinking to the rest of the bible. It's what I believe, and I assume many others do too.
I agree with most of what you've said, but I'd have to disagree with the part:
nations should be able to do whatever the hell they want in their own borders w/o the meddling of other nations.
Even though you're speaking in terms of a country's military operations, I don't think that countries (or their leaders) should have complete impunity from the consequences of the actions that they may perform on citizens. I mean, should we ignore the fact that dictatorial countries murder, starve, and enslave their own citizens? Some of these people are trapped in societies where they have no education, no food, and no fair system of government. Only the privilege of countries of birth have allowed any of us on/. access to the internet, instead of being trapped in a diamond mine in central Africa, or a sweat shop in South-East Asia.
I hope you realize that Michael Crichton is a fiction writer, not a atmospheric scientist. Despite his predictions in Jurassic Park, we've yet to see dinosaurs being resurrected on offshore islands...
To copy an earlier post of mine, there is very little "conflict" in academic circles regarding global warming. I'll quote the relevant part here:
I'd merely cite Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and say that analyzed peer reviewed academic journals for dissention on the topic of global warming, but such vague referencing doesn't really seem appropriate for the discussions that slashdot encourages. This however, is a summary of research into the peer reviewed journals. 75% of the articles analyzed agree that global warming is occurring, and that it is doing damage to Earth's biota. 25% of the articles are ambivalent towards the effects of global warming. That leaves a big, fat 0% of peer reviewed academic articles supporting the corporate viewpoint of global warming.
Secondly, I'll point out that the global ice age was predicted based on historical evidence prior to the industrial periods of the early 1940, when wonderful people like Thomas Midgley started putting CFCs in fridges and aerosols, and lead into petrol. The effects of CO2 (and other chemicals) on the environment was unknown. The fact that we were expecting an ice age, yet we've managed to initiate global warming, is a sign that we've done some pretty heavy damage already. The fact that we've managed to affect our climate so adversely in only 75 years, without even trying, is perhaps an indication that we could achieve something beneficial to the environment, were we to put our minds to it.
Sure humans can try and cope, but there are several billion other species on this planet that are incredibly susceptible to environmental change. I doubt that it could be successfully argued that the extinction of, say, 50% of these species is a good idea, and I don't think that humankind could really try and discover how to save these species before global warming kills either us or them.
I'd merely cite Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and say that analyzed peer reviewed academic journals for dissention on the topic of global warming, but such vague referencing doesn't really seem appropriate for the discussions that slashdot encourages. This however, is a summary of research into the peer reviewed journals. 75% of the articles analyzed agree that global warming is occurring, and that it is doing damage to Earth's biota. 25% of the articles are ambivalent towards the effects of global warming. That leaves a big, fat 0% of peer reviewed academic articles supporting the corporate viewpoint of global warming.
Finally, the Kyoto Protocols were a step towards undoing and reducing environmental damage caused by industry and agriculture. Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocols aren't going to do much - while they are restrictive in a capitalistic sense, they are very lenient in an environmental sense, and will not effectively reduce global warming by themselves (see article here). I guess those of you in the United States do not have to worry about it much though, since the US never ratified the treaty - in fact, it sounds like certain government agencies are doing their best to prevent global warming from being acknowledged as a threat.
I think, that perhaps rather than trying to work out how survive the time-bomb that's ticking right in front of us, it might be better to try and work out how to defuse it.
I think this approach to analysing computer game review scores is pretty flawed. Naturally, a percentage of games are going to be better, and a similar percentage is going to be worse than the average. All this shows is that there's a consistent mean score, and that the rest of the scores operate in a bell curve. It may be that the reviewers for GameRankings are required to work within a certain spread of figures for their reviews.
If anything it probably says more about three or four people working at GameRankings, not an industry wide standard.
I was merely quoting the article I linked to, but it does refer to Kashmir, which is the contested north-western area. Thus it's highly likely that the radical seperatists are those who are trying to get Kashmir transferred to Pakistan. Regardless, since it is still in India, it affects the country's Press Freedom Index, as calculated by RSF.
If you read the details about India on the RSF website, you will find out why it has been placed at rank 105. Journalists who "cover Maoist activities" can find themselves arrested for up to three years in some regions in the south, and in Kashmir journalists have been attacked by both the police and radical seperatists. Furthermore, according to RSF, there have been government officials filmed accepting bribes from a privately owned media company. Unless the United States has similar extreme problems which I am not aware of, then India probably deserves its 105th place ranking.
To continue with your example of India as a democratic country, I'll point out that they still have a hierarchical caste system, which includes the dalit caste. These dalits are generally not allowed to practice the religion which they are integrally a part of; and even though the caste system has been legally abolished, the legal systems are not enforced to protect them. There is a report on the social climate of India available on here.
Slashdot Mirror
Because humans have developed the function of long distance communication. Through the media, we are allowed to understand things that we may never have experienced in person before.
Your statement is somewhat redundant, as you might as well ask "why does anyone care about events occuring outside their immediate vicinity?" It's like saying, "should we care if Washington DC were to be bombed?" I don't personally live there, and I can't see it out my window. Just because something happened outside of a person's local region, doesn't somehow render their opinion on it completely void. The professor in question has been researching penguins and cetaceans in Asia and the South Pacific for over twenty years, I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.
Furthermore, it sounds like the expedition hasn't actually completed their analysis of the water, the part you have quoted is merely a prediction (found here) :
Notable perhaps is the fact that they mention that long term exposure wasn't inverstigated.
I've just contacted the associate professor in cetacean research at my local university, and asked specifically what the cause of the dolphin's extinction is. Apparently, the extinction is a combination of "pollution from industry, habitat loss due to damming, and incidental catch [i.e. fishing]". His words, not mine. I'd hope that he has a bit more knowledge about the issue than the journalists at CNN do.
I'm well aware of these incidents, it's why I pointedly referred to the last 9,000 out of 10,000 years... Furthermore, while solar and orbital fluctuations bias and unbalance an equilibrium, comets, asteroids, and volcanos (one of the other major cataclysms that cause global climate change) are often recovered from because the climate's system is in equilibrium. (i.e. volcanic ash, dust, etc eventually drops out of the sky, excess heat is absorbed by large bodies of water, or dissipates into space)
Also, I completely agree on the planting of trees, nothing could help our environment more. In fact, by turning CO2 in our atmosphere into condensed plant matter, we could prevent greater instability in our climate. A big problem at the moment is that large resources of coal are being burnt, and releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - this CO2 was extracted by the plants from the atmosphere over millions of years, and it's now being dumped straight back in all at once.
I understand your perspective, but "nature" hasn't been destroyed yet. Just because it's suffering severe stress to rebalance an equilibrium weather pattern doesn't mean we should hurry it along. Furthermore, in reply to your comment, "So what? It will be neither the first nor the last mass extinction.": mass extinctions are terribly damaging to the environment and to grace them with the "So what?" treatment is irresponsible. It takes a long time for "nature" to recover from any extinction - thousands on thousands of years in most cases.
Imagine if the earth's cattle all suddenly died from intolerable climate, or chickens all suddenly died out from extremely fast propagating disease vectors bearing bird flu - a lot of humans beings rely on these animals for sustenance for their milk or eggs, or for their meat products. I too hold human life far above animals, but that doesn't mean that I take their presence for granted.
Finally, I think it is the fact that environmentalists understand that the environment isn't static is the problem. Because they understand that the environment isn't static, they understand that global warming is a real, and dangerous, threat to future generations. What Earth had 10,000 years ago was a relatively stable environment that lasted in an equilibrium state for most of the last 9000 years. Mars, Venus, and all the other planets in our solar system exist in equilibrium climates, and what environmentalists are seeking to avoid is for Earth to enter into a similar inhospitable equilibrium.
A certainly see your point, but I was merely considering the predicament of other species who have less of an ability to migrate, and less adabtability that humans have due to technology and information. I'll also point out that one of the large issues involved in global warming is that the disease malaria is carried by mosquitos. As the climate warms globally, these mosquitos will span greater distances - spreading malaria to communities that have not had to deal with malarial outbreaks, or have less resistance to malaria due to a lack of any significant anemic populations.
To add to (or clarify) your statement, it's worth mentioning that the literal meaning of "faith" is believing in something without proof of its existence. This is how science is opposed to faith, as it requires empirical evidence to function, whereas faith is based on abstracts that only exist in people's consciousness.
Or: you could just believe that both versions of Genesis are contradictory and wrong, and then just apply this manner of thinking to the rest of the bible. It's what I believe, and I assume many others do too.
Even though you're speaking in terms of a country's military operations, I don't think that countries (or their leaders) should have complete impunity from the consequences of the actions that they may perform on citizens. I mean, should we ignore the fact that dictatorial countries murder, starve, and enslave their own citizens? Some of these people are trapped in societies where they have no education, no food, and no fair system of government. Only the privilege of countries of birth have allowed any of us on
Well, if the situation in North Korea is exacerbated to the point where they decide to send nuclear missiles...
Lets just say that the IT sector will be in need of some serious repair.
I'll also point out that the slogan for
To copy an earlier post of mine, there is very little "conflict" in academic circles regarding global warming. I'll quote the relevant part here:
Secondly, I'll point out that the global ice age was predicted based on historical evidence prior to the industrial periods of the early 1940, when wonderful people like Thomas Midgley started putting CFCs in fridges and aerosols, and lead into petrol. The effects of CO2 (and other chemicals) on the environment was unknown. The fact that we were expecting an ice age, yet we've managed to initiate global warming, is a sign that we've done some pretty heavy damage already. The fact that we've managed to affect our climate so adversely in only 75 years, without even trying, is perhaps an indication that we could achieve something beneficial to the environment, were we to put our minds to it.
That decision's already been made: we're rapidly running out of fossil fuels to inject into our atmosphere anyway.
Sure humans can try and cope, but there are several billion other species on this planet that are incredibly susceptible to environmental change. I doubt that it could be successfully argued that the extinction of, say, 50% of these species is a good idea, and I don't think that humankind could really try and discover how to save these species before global warming kills either us or them.
I'd merely cite Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and say that analyzed peer reviewed academic journals for dissention on the topic of global warming, but such vague referencing doesn't really seem appropriate for the discussions that slashdot encourages. This however, is a summary of research into the peer reviewed journals. 75% of the articles analyzed agree that global warming is occurring, and that it is doing damage to Earth's biota. 25% of the articles are ambivalent towards the effects of global warming. That leaves a big, fat 0% of peer reviewed academic articles supporting the corporate viewpoint of global warming.
Finally, the Kyoto Protocols were a step towards undoing and reducing environmental damage caused by industry and agriculture. Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocols aren't going to do much - while they are restrictive in a capitalistic sense, they are very lenient in an environmental sense, and will not effectively reduce global warming by themselves (see article here). I guess those of you in the United States do not have to worry about it much though, since the US never ratified the treaty - in fact, it sounds like certain government agencies are doing their best to prevent global warming from being acknowledged as a threat.
I think, that perhaps rather than trying to work out how survive the time-bomb that's ticking right in front of us, it might be better to try and work out how to defuse it.
I'll just get rid of all my friends.
I think this approach to analysing computer game review scores is pretty flawed. Naturally, a percentage of games are going to be better, and a similar percentage is going to be worse than the average. All this shows is that there's a consistent mean score, and that the rest of the scores operate in a bell curve. It may be that the reviewers for GameRankings are required to work within a certain spread of figures for their reviews.
If anything it probably says more about three or four people working at GameRankings, not an industry wide standard.
I was merely quoting the article I linked to, but it does refer to Kashmir, which is the contested north-western area. Thus it's highly likely that the radical seperatists are those who are trying to get Kashmir transferred to Pakistan. Regardless, since it is still in India, it affects the country's Press Freedom Index, as calculated by RSF.
If you read the details about India on the RSF website, you will find out why it has been placed at rank 105. Journalists who "cover Maoist activities" can find themselves arrested for up to three years in some regions in the south, and in Kashmir journalists have been attacked by both the police and radical seperatists. Furthermore, according to RSF, there have been government officials filmed accepting bribes from a privately owned media company. Unless the United States has similar extreme problems which I am not aware of, then India probably deserves its 105th place ranking.
To continue with your example of India as a democratic country, I'll point out that they still have a hierarchical caste system, which includes the dalit caste. These dalits are generally not allowed to practice the religion which they are integrally a part of; and even though the caste system has been legally abolished, the legal systems are not enforced to protect them. There is a report on the social climate of India available on here.