Re: Species Threatened By Global Warming
obozn
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:32421d7e-5b0d-4c20...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Tropical Rainforest And Mountain Species May Be Threatened By Global
Warming
******************************************************
Only "may"????
Sounds like another bunkum extrapolation from debunked climate models!!
Disclaimer
The projections are based on results from computer models that involve
simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully
understood.
Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted for the accuracy of
the projections inferred from this brochure or for any person's
interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this
information.
And further:
Climate model responses are most uncertain in how they represent
feedback
effects, particularly those dealing with changes to cloud regimes,
biological effects and ocean-atmosphere interactions. The coarse spatial
resolution of climate models also remains a limitation on their ability
to
simulate the details of regional climate change. Future climate change
will
also be influenced by other, largely unpredictable, factors such as
changes
in solar radiation, volcanic eruptions and chaotic variations within the
climate system itself. Rapid climate change, or a step-like climate
response
to the enhanced greenhouse effect, is possible but its likelihood cannot
be
defined. Because changes outside the ranges given here cannot be ruled
out,
these projections should be considered with caution.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
: “They don’t tell you, that, in their computer models, it’s assumed
that CO2 drives global warming. In other words, you assume the result
and say the computer model proves we were right. It’s garbage in,
garbage out. If you don’t program the computers to cause temperatures to
rise with CO2, then you have nothing.” Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor
Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University
obozn
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:32421d7e-5b0d-4c20...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Tropical Rainforest And Mountain Species May Be Threatened By Global
Warming
Extinction Rate Of “No-Name” Species Is A Shocking 30,000!
Peter Foster
May 30, 2008
[…]
Mr. Harper went to Europe. On Wednesday he spoke in Bonn to the summit
on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
[…]
The Bonn summit was the usual cast of thousands UN gabfest, at which
myriad expensive new bureaucratic initiatives were announced against a
background of ritual doom and gloom. The Convention on Biological
Diversity emerged from the policy swamp of Rio in 1990, along with its
even uglier cousin, the treaty on climate change. The CBD’s modest
commitment is to “preserving life on Earth,” which requires that life on
Earth be seen to be in ever-greater peril.
Climate change is said to threaten a biotic holocaust. This is on top of
the horror of the tens of thousands of species that are already
disappearing annually due to pesky human activity.
Tragically, nobody can name any of these species because although we’re
wiping them out, they haven’t yet been discovered. The carnage is taking
place entirely in computers. This makes “progress” on the issue a bit of
a problem. Still, since enviro-hysteria is about faith not facts, and
votes not reason, Mr. Harper chose to sing in Bonn from the
bio-hymnbook.
“Despite the best efforts of the signatories to the convention,” he
said, “we are still losing wildlife species at an alarming rate.”
Mr. Harper knew he was entirely safe from anybody asking him exactly how
alarming the rate was, because — as suggested — there’s a bit of a range
of opinion on that. The official recorded rate of extinction over the
past 500 years is between one and two species a year. The “consensus” by
UN authorities and their fellow travelers on the annual rate of
extinction of all those No Name species is around 30,000.
That’s quite a difference.
Mr. Harper knew he was not about to be contradicted when he said that
“We must do more if we are to achieve our 2010 objectives for a
significant reduction in the rate of worldwide biodiversity loss.”
Presumably the only way you can reduce a rate of biodiversity loss based
entirely on alarmist assumptions is to change the assumptions. So my
modest prediction is that the 2010 target will be missed, and that we
will henceforth be told we have to redouble well-expensed efforts to
spread ever more gloom and doom, and Western taxpayers’ money.
It is obvious that an expanding human population, and economic growth,
put pressure on the habitats of the millions of other species on Earth.
However, humans also happen to be the only species that cares about
other life forms and seeks to preserve them.
Unfortunately, it is also the only species that has a Machiavellian mind
that exploits human concerns, and human ignorance, in pursuit of power.
The ecosystem for that complex Darwinian struggle is called democratic
politics. Conservatives tend to be more aware of the dangers of those
who seek massive coercive powers to do good, or avert evil.
Radical environmentalists, by contrast, would like to subvert democracy
completely. They want to throw Noah off the Ark.
Mr. Harper’s earnestness on biodiversity was matched by his heartfelt
concern about the alleged European perception that Canada is not
serious — that is, not suicidal — when it comes to climate change
policy.
Media reports suggested that Mr. Harper had to “sell” his climate change
plan to the Europeans, but European electorates are not the slightest
bit interested in anything that Mr. Harper is selling. They are up in
arms about their own politicians’ expensive and pointless schemes.
For example, Gordon Brown’s newest climate change-related transport tax
proposals have led to public and party revolt, and have been called a
“poll tax on wheels.” The poll tax, you may remember, was the measure
that led to the undoing of Ms. Thatcher in 1990. Mr. Brown is no
Margaret Thatcher. Paul Martin, maybe.
Mr. Harper’s climate policy crime is that he has declared less
unachievable targets for Canada than those trumpeted by European
politicians. EU members are still hanging on to Kyoto’s 1990 reference
point for emissions reduction targets, while Mr. Harper is suggesting
that the sensible place to start when discussing future emissions
reductions is right now (or at least 2006). He also wants environmental
programs to be, as he told his London audience yesterday, “realistic,
practical and achievable.”
Is he crazy? That’s not the climate change/biodiversity game at all.
Doesn’t he realize that the point is to stop industrial society as we
know it? Anybody in doubt should just mark the words of Achim Steiner,
head of the UN Environment Programme. In Bonn this week, Mr. Steiner
said “We have a misdirected economic compass — we have arranged our
economies in a way that they destroy their environmental foundations.”
If only he and his retread socialist brethren could have another chance
at “arranging” the global economy.
Mr. Harper vowed on Wednesday to get past the “empty rhetoric” on
climate change action. But then surely empty rhetoric is way better than
self-destructive, nonsensical commitment to the warped projections of
global envirocrats.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"The great sin of capitalism is its unequal distribution of benefits.
The great virtue of socialism is its equal distribution of miseries."
Winston Churchill
oobzn
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:d3cba2df-6d37-4f27...@v53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>Plants need CO2 like
> humans need oxygen. More CO2 means plants grow bigger, faster and in
> more places.
Again, not always.
*********************************************
What on earth do you mean by "not always."??????
CO2 is ALWAYS good for plamts!
We should have more of it.
Apparently 1000ppm, as used in greenhouses, is the optimum!
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on
long, medium and even short time scales." R. Timothy Patterson,
Professor Of Geology, Director Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center,
Carleton University, Canada