bombus

The Zionist Jews are to blame. Palestine belonged to the Palestinians (many of whom had descended from the original Jews anyway having converted to Islam many centuries ago). They have had their country stolen from them. There will be no peace until:

1. All the Palestinians are dead

2. All the Zionist Jews are dead (which means everybody dies due to the Samson Option)

3. The current state of Israel is dismantled and reborn as a single country including the Palestinian lands so Jews and Palestinians can live in peace in a secular state where everyone has equal rights.

Unfortunately, I think the first two are the most likely.

Ho hum...

The land belongs to Israel, whose capital is Jerusalem, and whose inhabitants are Jews (by origin, which is how the land righteously belongs to them).

Oh yeah? Well who was there before the Jews? By that reckoning the Brits should still rule the USA! In fact the North American Indians should rule the USA! Maybe you'd be happy to hand over power and privalege to the few that remain?

The Martians will zap it first with their ray guns.

I think the Yeti is more plausible

...Homo Erectus and the Native American are unrelated (one isn't descendant of the other), even though Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus have some similar features.

Actually, that is debatable. The alternative to the 'out of africa theory' is that the ubiquitous Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens independently all over the world, resulting in the various races of mankind.

To bombus

You are correct in that these classifications can be rather arbitrary, and there is no clear cut definition. This makes for lots of argument.

 

Originally, the term species meant a group of organisms incapable of interbreeding successfully across many generations with any other group. However, some strange exceptions have been seen across groups originally seen as distinct species. Hence the rather nebulous and silly definition you quoted.

 

Subspecies and race are even more nebulous. However, sub-species is supposed to represent a genetic difference from other sub species that is significantly greater than the genetic difference within its own group. By this distinction, human races are not sub species.

Well, I'm sure one can come up with any number of definitions that exclude human races as sub-species if one wants. However, your definition is not scientifically accepted anywhere as far as I have been able to research. Also, by your definition the very act of two sub-species interbreeding in an overlap area would cancel both sub-species out as such.

Considering that the hooded crow and the carrion crow breed with each other where their ranges overlap does not cancel them out as sub-species.

Sorry bombus

 

On this matter, you have taken a small difference and stretched it too far.

 

Races are not sub-species. There is a massive difference in terms of genetic change. Human races differ from each other to a degree that is not more than the genetic difference between myself and my neighbour - both of us European stock.

Sorry SkepticLance, you're wrong there. Also, I suggest you read more about the human genome project. There is far more variation in humans than previously thought.

Your classification of races is an obsolete one that is not followed any more by respected scientists. There are just too many points of overlap, which make the classification totally arbitrary and not very useful.

 

The difference in terms of melanin is caused by just a few genes, and it often happens that a person from a 'white' culture will be born much darker than others, or the reverse - a 'black' set of parents give birth to someone much paler than they. This happens because the number of genes involved are small and a slight genetic difference can create a large difference in skin colour.

 

Ditto for other racial traits. They are caused by a very few genes, and cannot constitute the degree of genetic difference to call those different populations human sub-species.

I repeat, Human races can quite correctly be called sub-species. If humans cannot be so sub-divided then neither can Tigers/Wolves/Cats etc! The differences are not that small, but for obvious reasons, small enough to allow fully successful interbreeding.

There is no "degree of genetic difference" accepted by science that separates one sub-species from another. All that is required is that one sub-species is recognizable and linked to a geographic area. I suggest you read about Carrion and Hooded Crows, for example.

The following criteria is for Species, so is even less stringent for sub-species. My highlighting:

1. Members of the group are reliably distinguishable from members of other groups. The distinction can be made in any of a wide number of ways, such as: differently shaped leaves, a different number of primary wing feathers, a particular ritual breeding behaviour, relative size of certain bones, different DNA sequences, and so on. There is no set minimum 'amount of difference': the only criterion is that the difference be reliably discernable. In practice, however, very small differences tend to be ignored.

2. The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent.

As said above, this is equivalent to the UK Value Added Tax (VAT). It puts the tax burden on the poorest as they spend most of their income on taxable stuff. It is favoured by the right wing as they favour (and mostly are) the rich.

Income tax is the fairest, but the rich can always employ clever accountants so they pay hardly any tax!

Human races are sub-species of human. The characteristics attributed to subspecies are generally derived from changes that evolved as a result of geographical distribution. There are three or four sub-species of human (depending on how you look at it):

For want of better terms they are essentially:

1. Caucausoid: includes Europeans, North Africans, Jews, Arabs, Persians, Indians, etc.

2. Archaic White (sometimes categorized as a subclass of the above): Australian aboriginies, Veddans (South India), Anui (Japan), Uralic peoples (Russia).

3. Negroid: Sub-Saharan Africans

4. Mongaloid: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, 'Eskimo', North and South American 'Indians'.

Mixing has occured on the fringes of these peoples such as the 'Indo-chinese' (e.g. Vietnamese, Burmese, Nepalese), Ethiopians, some North Africans, Polynesians/Micronesians etc. Some suggest that certain North American 'Indians' are mixed with North Europeans who crossed to America from Europe during the last glaciation.

All interesting stuff, and a great argument against racism IMO!

Anyway, all are capable of developing into different species if isolated, but remember the concept of species is quite fuzzy anyway. Herring Gulls and Black Backed Gulls are the same species in Canada, but do not breed with each other in Europe. They are known as a 'ring species'.

Good points guys. I think the main reason for the dissaperance of Neanderthals if due to interbreading. If anything I think we will eventually become one race but without interbreading we would definitely become seperate species. There is a tribe in afria with only 2 toes for example and Aborigines are very differnt from all the other races.

Australian aborigines are a very old race, but are not that unique. They are closely related to the Veddans of South India, the Anui of Japan and Uralic peoples. They show characteristics of the earliest Homo sapiens. And the tribe in Africa with two toes is just a genetic trait that occurs in a small group. It's not linked to a race.

A more familiar example of animal suicide would be the bee. They're like suicide bombers, only with stingers instead of explosives. Oh, and I think bees might kill more people than suicide bombers do (due to allergies), but I'm not sure of that last bit.

Bees don't really count:

1. Workers cannot reproduce so don't act like 'normal' individuals. A beehive should be thought of as a single animal in this sense. This also applies to ants hence examples of individual ants sacrificing themselves for the colony.

2. Bees only lose their stings when stinging animals with relatively tough hides, e.g a human. When they sting other insects they don't lose their stingers so don't die.

On a more general note, apart from pining to death (which isn't quite the same as suicide) I can think of no animal apart from humans that commits suicide. Perhaps this is because animals do not have an ego to protect, and also as far as we can guess, do not really have a concept of life/death complicated enough to make them see death as an escape.

I once saw a video in which a big monkey (probably female) and a small one (probably it's "kid") were punt inside a container which had fire at the bottom.

 

And the two monkeys were trying with all they could to avoid the fire, trying to stay alive. That went on for quite a long time. And I guess they got tired and the big monkey took it's kid and placed it at the hole were the fire was coming from. The small monkey (of course) got all burnt and the fire went off. And if only you'd seen the look on the mother's face. So sad!

 

After all, we got A LOT in common with other animals!

Woah, what video's have you been watching?

in one of dawkins books he did an amusing calculation, i dont remember the exact numbers, but something to the effect of if human reproduction maintained its current rate (which is needless to say impossible, but i said it anyway) within some hundred years (1,2 or 3?) every foot of the planet, including the oceans would be covered in humans, and we would be exploding into space, outward in all directions, at the speed of light.

 

i hope and believe that humans will surivive into the future and continue to evolve, but obviously a lot of us will die. Maybe all of us.

 

George Carlin has some interesting ideas on the subject

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related

George Carlin doesn't seem to realise that most species that are going extinct today are doing so BECAUSE of mankinds meddling. They are not going extinct due to 'natural processes'.

He's not very funny, and just plain wrong!

Ho ho ho, this is how the world works - how it's always worked. Governments are just gangsters operating on a bigger scale. Democracy in a capitalist society is a sham which allows Joe Public to think he's got a say, but actually we only get a say on the most trivial of issues.

Gleaming white teeth look like false teeth anyway. I wouldn't bother!

You mean "reek"? Ok, I appreciate the direct answer, and I respect your opinion on it, and I won't even take major disagreement with its accuracy, at least insofar as it pertains to myself. That's beacuse I think ALL of us are influenced by our political opinions, and their influence on this ostensibly (but not really) scientific discussion was manifest before I opened my mouth.

 

But I agree that your data supports your general opinion. If you haven't received enough recognition of that fact, I'll happily address that by saying so. I guess the difference between you and I is that I think that having data support an opinion is not the same as having proof. And neither, apparently, does the IPCC.

 

My only point here has been that skepticism is part of science, not its enemy, and when you guys demonize people like myself and SkepticLance, the religious right just laughs and sits back and relaxes, watching us do their work for them. I just think we can do better than that, that's all.

 

You guys should EMBRACE SkepticLance, not bemoan the fact that his opinion "reeks". Shout his existence on our board from the highest mountaintop. Look at the skeptic we have in our midst, and how we listen to what he has to say! Look at how we answer him point by point, and acknowledge him when he's right, but make it clear when he's wrong! We know he's not Rush Limbaugh, he's something far more useful and important: An INTELLIGENT skeptic on global warming. That's an INCREDIBLY important thing. And look -- Global Warming STILL HOLDS UP! Holy cow!

 

But hey, maybe it's just me.

Whilst you have a valid point - scientific theories should always be questioned, there is a danger when ideas are challenged by let us say unreliable evidence.

In the UK one lone scientists saw a link between MMR Vaccine and autism. Despite the fact that his research was thoroughly investigated by the best minds around - and flatly rejected, thousands of parents wouldn't let their children have the MMR Vaccine. Measles inevitably increased and the death rate for the disease increased, i.e., kids died as a result of one persons nonsense research.

Although over 90% of scientists agree that the current increase in GW is anthropogenic, I'd guess that over 50% of people are still skeptical about it because of idiots like Lomborg and Jeremy Clarkson! This makes it harder to address the issue.

To skepticlance:

This bursts a numner of GW myths:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

To bombus

 

The term 'habitat loss' is very vague. This is inevitable, because of the context. If you want a scientifically exact definition, you are going to be disappointed. However, the English word 'loss' means something is gone. If I say that I have lost something, I mean it is totally gone. If I lose a page from a book, I do not say the book is lost. I say the book is lost only if the whole book is lost.

 

In the same way, to say a habitat is lost when only a small change has occurred is simply incorrect.

Well in that case it is scientifically meaningless as you cannot draw a line to say what counts as loss and what does not. So from now on, lets not bother using it and say Habitat Change instead, which can be put on a scale.

You said ;

 

" How could Panda's survive without their bamboo forests? How could mountain Gorillas survive without their habitats? How could tigers survive without thier forests?"

 

These are genuine examples of habitat loss, since you are talking about the loss of the entire habitat. The reason the loss of a forest does not result in the extinction of the tiger is simply that there are other forests. That is why habitat loss rarely, by itself, leads to extinction.

What other forests are these then? Most are not connected, so the tigers could not just move from one to another. If there was not massive conservation effort ongoing NOW tigers would be gone in the next ten years due primarily to habitat loss due to human encroachment.

I agree that if ALL forests in the world were lost, the tiger would go extinct. You may care to ask yourself how probable that is. Therefore, how likely that habitat loss leads to to extinction.

The forest at the back of my house could not support tigers! How would they ever get there? It is actually very possible that all tiger-supporting forests could disappear within the century, and a certainty if conservation effort ceased.

You also said

 

"I can't understand why you would rather take the word of a capitalist statitician who has an interest in denying environmental problems"

 

If you read the preamble to Lomborg's book, you will see that he began his researches in an attempt to prove the greenies correct. Lomborg was even a member of Greenpeace. He became a sceptic of environmental dogma only as a result of his research results, and only reluctantly.

 

And as I pointed out, I did not take his word. I did not reject his findings - just treated them as tentatively possible, and did further reading, which confirmed that Lomborg was mostly right.

I strongly doubt he is right, and I also doubt his motives. At the end of the day it's up to you though. I see this as the inevitable backlash to the green movement being proven correct after all these years. I am sure in 50 years time there will still be people saying GW has nothing to do with humans, just as there are still billions of people who reject natural selection...

Anyway, try this link for size:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.html

______________

To bombus

 

I think you have ended up in a piece of circular logic. You believe fervently that habitat loss is the major cause of extinctions. You therefore say that, if something goes extinct as a result of a change in its environment, such as the introduction of a predator, it must be habitat loss, and you define that change as habitat loss to make it so.

 

When I first read about habitat loss being a minor cause of extinction, I was surprised also, since I too had been exposed to the opposite propaganda. However, what I did (and any good scientist will do) was slip the information into a mental file labelled "to be tested". Over the several years that followed, I expanded my reading to include extinction examples, and ran a mental test on each : 'was this habitat loss?"

 

I discovered over time that, in fact, very few - if any - could be described as habitat loss. Thus, I did what any good scientist will do, and changed my world picture to accept the idea that habitat loss was only a minor cause of extinction.

 

I have been doing this ever since. Whenever I read about an extinction - I say "is this habitat loss?" Almost invariably, the answer is no. As you know, I even went to the extent of posting a thread on the subject, and found that, even the selected extinction examples that people were posting to prove habitat loss caused extinction, normally had other causes.

 

I should also add that no-one - not Lomborg and not me - are suggesting this principle be used as an excuse to permit habitat loss. I will enthusiastically argue that forests:mad: , rain forests, wetlands, lakes and other relatively unspoiled habitats have their own value, separately from preserving particular species from extinction. The conservation of special habitats is worth doing in its own right. We are NOT in any way trying to justify their destruction.

The trouble with your (and Lomborg's) approach, is that you are using an arbitrary and unmeasurable definition of habitat loss to come up with conclusions. It doesn't matter how scrupulous your science is from that point, it is based on very, very loose foundations!

You end up excluding so many cases of habitat 'loss' ('change', call it what you will) that the statistics become meaningless, and you can end up saying that habitat loss is a minor cause of extinction.

Most conservationists who actually work in the field around the world know this to be nonsense. It's actually impossible that it can be a minor cause of extinctions, because species are dependent on their habitats. It's uncanny that you can't seem to understand this? How could Panda's survive without their bamboo forests? How could mountain Gorillas survive without their habitats? How could tigers survive without thier forests?

Also, as I keep pointing out, habitat loss would have caused many more extinctions if it wasn't for concentrated and concerted conservation effort, so the conclusion that habitat loss is not a major factor in extinction is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WRONG!

Lomborg is using statistical tricks to come up with his conclusions, and only those experienced enough can spot his 'sleight of hand'. So while not falsifying scientific work, and indeed using peer reviewed work to back up his claims, it is the way in which they are being used that ends up in him basically being scientifically fraudulent.

I can't understand why you would rather take the word of a capitalist statitician who has an interest in denying environmental problems (as addressing them would affect business profits), rather than the 99% of scientists who know him to be full of you know what!

To bombus

 

I also looked up the Wiki definition of habitat. It was a bit long-winded, but boiled down to the combination of

1. Physical and chemical features in the environment that affect the relevent living things

plus

2. Biological factors in the environment that affect those living things.

 

Habitat loss therefore includes the loss of a large number of features.

 

 

Well the above would therefore include examples such as 1. sulphur pollution killing lichens in a woodland (but nothing else) and; 2. Grey squirrels being introduced to a native british woodland.

 

There is nothing in there that mentions at what scale one should regard the change as habitat loss. It does not mention a large numbers of features. This is because it is, in reality, species dependent.

 

 

 

 

There is a distinction between habitat loss and habitat change that you have failed to acknowledge. Not only can you change habitat, but it is happening all the time, whether 'natural' change or human induced. Habitat change is not habitat loss unless it is very drastic. If a road is built through a forest, the forest habitat remains, though it is now changed. If a new species of tree starts to grow in the forest, the forest habitat remains, though there is a small change. That is NOT habitat loss, since the forest habitat is still there.

 

The articles I have read on habitat loss always use much more drastic examples than you admit to. Deforestation is the number one example in all the articles I have read. Draining of wetlands is also frequently mentioned. Ditto, conversion of 'natural' environment to farmlands. I really think you are out on your own in re-defining habitat loss to include introduction of one or a few alien species.

 

In fact, as I said before, I think you found yourself in the position of losing an argument and resorted to an illegal re-definition of terms out of desperation.

 

No. The point is that Lomborg appears to argue that habitat loss is not a major cause of extinction (so not a priority to worry about) because few species have gone extinct to habitat loss on its own.

 

Regardless of the fact that the above is a very flawed argument (because it ignores the ongoing massive conservation effort, and doesn't account for the next 100 years) you appear to think that habitat loss is only occurring when an area of land undergoes dramatic change past a threshold which cannot ever be specified, except by you it would seem. This is meaningless to the flora and fauna that occupy a habitat. Red squirrels go extinct when they encounter grey squirrels. Thusly, when we try to conserve them we are limited to certain habitats where greys do not prosper (e.g. conifer woodlands). Red squirrels have become extinct in most of the southern UK as a result of an inability to live in an area of land ('cos of the Greys). To reds, this is just as devastating as if all the trees had been removed. For them, the habitat is destroyed. For tawny owls, however, the habitat is virtually unchanged. This is the reality!

 

If, for the purposes of this discussion, you want to produce a list of things you arbitrarily want to exclude from the term 'habitat loss', then that's fine, but please also include the exact threshold at which a habitat is lost (rather than changed).

 

The thing is, it is exactly this type of argument that we are having that makes Lomborgs conclusions and statements meaningless, ill-informed and ultimately very wrong!

 

Bombus, I think what Skepticlance is getting at is that your definition of Habitat loss is too broad.

 

It comes across that the definition you are using is something like: "Any change in a habitat that leads to an extinction is extinction via habitat loss." This is certainly true but it doesn't lead us anywhere because therefore all extinctions are due to habitat loss. Inability to compete in an evolutionary sense becomes extinction due to habitat loss. This devalues the meaning of "habitat loss" to zero.

 

The point is that species go extinct to man made (and natural) 'changes' in habitats regardless of whether they are dramatic enough for some people to deem them examples of habitat loss. Thusly if we accept only the most dramatic examples it becomes scientifically meaningless to undertake studies only on those examples, because it is an arbitrary human concept.

 

Maybe we should abandon the term habitat loss, and just use 'habitat change'. Then we could talk about minor changes (introduction of little owls to the UK) and major changes (deforestation of the Amazon basin).

Wiki is good for some things, but always take it with a pinch of salt!

bombus said :

 

"You sound very sure about that. Funny, 'cos he's the one who's the expert, not you!"

 

I suspect that the editor of SciAm himself would deny this. He is a journalist - not a scientist. That is why he selected scientists to do the attacking, rather than himself. Because his own lack of expertise would mean he would not be taken seriously.

Same difference. Experts criticised Lomborg.

bombus also said :

 

"Animal and plants altering their dispersal? What kind of statement is that?"

 

OK. Maybe that was a poor choice of words.

There have been many cases where various species move from one geographic region to another, without any human influence. Sometimes that results in extinctions of other species. Would you regard that as habitat loss? I certainly do not.

Not all habitat loss is caused by humans! Think of volcanoes, floods, meteorite impacts, continents meeting up. The point is that habitat loss (with regard to resulting species extinctions) can take many different forms depending on what species one is considering.

bombus also said

"The term 'rainforest habitat' is a human conception/description that's handy for us to use to describe certain habitat types to ourselves. Nothing more."

 

So you admit that your terminology is subjective, and malleable? If that is the case, how seriously must I take your modified definition of habitat loss?

It is not subjective, habitat loss is just different for different species. Simple! The wikipedia article on this occasion is not very good, nor very scientific. It actually limits the definition to human caused habitat loss - 'Habitat destruction is any human-induced habitat change that results in a reduction of natural habitat.' - which is plainly over strict for such a general term. However, it does say that any change counts!

"If bears were reintroduced it would be very unlikely that they would survive as their simply isn't enough of a suitable habitat left for them as we have cut down too many forests."

 

Interesting example to choose. Bears are omnivores and very adaptable. Bears do not need forest. They can live in a wide range of habitats. Where they are wiped out, it is because humans actively remove them, as by hunting. If bears were re-introduced to Britain, they would probably thrive, until people got so brassed off at their foraging that they took to them with rifles.

I beg to differ. bears would not do well in agriculturally improved pasture! However, maybe it was a bad example to choose - I was only illustrating a point, that being the difference between extinction due to a functional loss of habitat, and extinction due to another factor (e.g. hunting).

To bombus

 

You really are arguing from ignorance. You have not read Lomborg, and are assuming that, because a few dogma ridden dudes don't like what he wrote, that he is wrong. Read him yourself before you argue without knowledge.

Like I said, anyone who thinks habitat loss is not linked to species extinction is not worthy of my attention.

The major attack on Lomborg came from the editor of Scientific American. He is a greenie from way back, and has always followed green dogma whether it is scientifically demonstrated to be true or not. He is wrong.

You sound very sure about that. Funny, 'cos he's the one who's the expert, not you!

I have read both Lomborg's book, and the SciAm attack. Therefore I am in a much better position to judge relative merits than you. This does not constitute me saying, "my cause is right because I say so". It is an assertion that I have done the necessary research to make a judgement and you have not.

You may have read, but you have not understood.

On the business of a habitat. You are trying to define habitat loss as almost any habitat change. That is not correct.

It depends on which species you are talking about! Habitat loss is different for different species. And you said you knew about ecology!

Sure, once change gets to a certain point, we can define it as habitat loss.

And what point is that exactly. When a certain microbiologist says so, by any chance?

But where we draw the line is a damn sight further along that just introducing one, two, or three new species.

Says who? You! Tell that to a red squirrel in the UK!

This happens all the time in a natural way, with animals and plants altering their dispersal.

Animal and plants altering their dispersal? What kind of statement is that?

Yet if a rainforest receives or loses a few new species, we do not turn around and say : "That is no longer a rainforest habitat."

The term 'rainforest habitat' is a human conception/description that's handy for us to use to describe certain habitat types to ourselves. Nothing more.

Habitat loss is when the majority of all factors influencing the viability of the species living there changes, to the point where they cannot survive.

Says who? Oh yes, you, again! Anyway, the 'viability of species' is different for each species!! Tigers in an Indian rainforest would be more vulnerable to some changes than rats, or insects or fungi living there.

If we chop down a forest, that is habitat loss. If we drain a wetland or lake and turn it into a meadow, that is habitat loss. If we introduce a rat species into a new island, that is a small habitat change, but not habitat loss.

Says you! To the species that may go extinct from rats being introduced to an island it is habitat loss! It is species specific - not an imaginary threshold that needs the approval of SkepticLance or Lomborg.

Over the past 12,000 years, polynesian peoples have crossed, and colonised the Pacific. As they went, they carried the polynesian rat with them. The result was the extinction of an estimated 2,000 species of island birds. Yet, the islands that were so colonised retained the same forest, the same tree species, the same lakes, lagoons, soils etc. One small change, leading to massive extinction, but only habitat change - not habitat loss.

As above!

If an example like that were defined as habitat loss, then the whole concept of habitat loss loses all meaning, and becomes a worthless phrase. In fact, we could say that the entire globe - every corner has suffered habitat loss. That makes the idea totally valueless. Is that what you are asserting?

No you are wrong. Let me give you an example. If beavers were reintroduced to the UK they would get along just fine 'cos the habitat they need is still here. They were hunted to extinction by man in the middle ages. Habitat loss was not a factor.

If bears were reintroduced it would be very unlikely that they would survive as their simply isn't enough of a suitable habitat left for them as we have cut down too many forests. habitat loss was the major cause of their extinction.

I can't wait to hear what all the Hollywood types who've been to visit Chavez think of all this. According to Bill O'Reilly, more Hollywood stars have been to visit Hugo Chavez than have been to visit the troops in Afghanistan. Take that, Sean Penn, you freaking moron.[/

Can you blame them!? Afghanistan is dangerous!

Oh, and I'd call Chavez a socialist rather than a liberal (wtf does that really mean anyway?)

Chavez is great! Long may he rein.

Err, I thought the term refers to a unified field-theory, as opposed to un-unified field-theories (which we currently have).

I don't think there's a unified field. It's just the field that reality exists in. It's kinda another name for the ether (although not exactly the same).

Human evolution is now being driven mainly by intra-species factors, rather than he environment. Humans sexually select for neotenic traits, as this leads to big brains. This isn't likely to change and the reason why bearded women are scarce!

I suggest you red 'The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley'.

Very very good!

To bombus

 

I am not sure if I should even reply to your last post. I read it several times, and it boils down to "Lomborg is wrong because I said so."

I looked for an argument and could not find one.

No, Lomborg is wrong because just about ALL scientists say so! Anyway, I work full time in Wildlife Conservation, and I DO know that Lomborg is totally and utterly wrong. It's just a shame that some people like to believe in whacky theories JUST BECAUSE they run counter to popular opinion. It's also a shame, and quite strange (IMO) that, despite your science background, you can't seem to realise that his conclusions are rubbish.

And I know perfectly well what a habitat is. I have studied more than microbiology and have 'A' passes in university ecology. If the habitat is stated to be rain forest, and the rain forest is still there, the habitat has not been destroyed, even if another species is now present.

Sorry SkeptiLance, this shows that you don't understand what constitutes a habitat, and just repeating 'I DO' doesn't make matters any better.

Habitat change and habitat loss can be exactly the same thing to certain species. E.g. The sea is still the sea even if it had no oxygen in it, but to most species in it, a lack of oxygen would constitute a loss of suitable habitat. Just because it still looks like the same habitat to you does not mean it IS the same habitat. If I replace the trees of a deciduous forest with conifers, it's still a forest, but to the species that rely on deciduous forests, the habitat would be lost. If red squirrels need woodlands that do not contain grey squirrels, then an invasion of grey squirrels means that the habitat they can occupy is lost - same thing! This has been explained to you time and time again, but for some unknown reason you just can't see to GET IT! You are not stupid! There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

Lomborg is wrong and so are you.

Drugs is the safest way. Other methods can kill.

To bombus, re Lomborg.First : Hav you read his book? If not, your arguments actually mean very little.

Nope. My arguments mean more than Lomborg's. And i restate that you (and Lomborg) were totally blown out of the water in that thread, but just wouldn't accept it.

Actually no. Some examples were offered. Each and every one was of an extinction which had several causes, and habitat loss was not in any case the primary cause, with the possible exception of the Yangtze River dolphin, which was probably mainly killed by water pollution. However, even in that case, there were other factors, such as the large number of dolphins killed by nets in that river.

The other factors would have had little impact if the habitat had remained intact.

You also said :

 

"Introduction of an alien species IS HABITAT LOSS! Why can't you understand that simple point!?"

 

You are now trying to win a debate by arbitrarily altering definitions. Habitat loss is when the habitat is gone. Alien species are not loss of habitat. They are a new, added factor. Not a loss of habitat.

 

 

You could use your altered definition to say each and every cause of extinction is habitat loss. If people arrive and hunt an animal to extinction, that is habitat loss. If a new disease causes an extinction, that is habitat loss. Sorry bombus. That tactic is cheating.

 

Here in New Zealand, the native thrush is extinct. The cause is predation by introduced rats and stoats. But its habitat remains. It lives in South Island rain forest. The South Island rain forest is still there, so the habitat is not lost. Its extinction was not caused by habitat loss.

Yaaaawwn. As you are a microbiologist may I suggest that you have simply not studied enough ecology. You appear not to understand what constitutes a habitat. Thusly, you are finding it hard to judge when a habitat is lost - just like Lomborg.

You also said

 

"SkepticLance, Lomborg is a fool who, due to his lack of a scientific grounding is totally incapable of interpreting the data in a meaningful way."

 

Lomborg has never claimed to be a scientist. He is an associate professor of statistics at a Danish University of Aarhus, and is also trained as an economist. He is far from stupid. He is actually rather smart, as his Ph.D. kind of testifies. His research for his book was meticulous, and his conclusions follow directly from the papers and studies he refers to.

If you can get a BSc, you can get a PhD. It's just extended study. It doesn't require any more brains. His research is NOT meticulous at all. He is like those creationists who meticulously 'research' scientific papers to 'prove' that evolution is a myth. They cannot interpret what they are referring to either.

He is not alone in the stance he took.

He is effectively alone. And there's a very good reason why - he's WRONG!

Professor Julian Simon was the first person to publicise the data showing that the global environment was not all some kind of disaster story.

YET!!!

Numerous others has also written to demonstrate the same. However, good news is never acceptable by environmentalists, and people ignore the facts to concentrate on the dogma.

Total nonsense.

I suggest you read Lomborg's book.

Ho ho ho. May I suggest you read the Bible. It's the word of God you know, and PROVES that evolution is a myth. (It makes more sense than Lomborg!)

SkepticLance, I am sorry, but IMO you are barking up the wrong tree if you think Lomborg is anything but a good statitician, and you know what they're like - if I had my head in a fire and my feet in a bucket of ice, statistically, I'd be OK!

If forced, I'd rather kill a human foetus than a mature cow. Just 'cos it's human doesn't make it special to me.

No-one gladly has an abortion, but sometimes it's better than not having one. At the very least, banning abortions just means that it gets done in secret and more young women die as a result.

I am pro-choice. Until a foetus is a breathing baby its just another part of a womans body IMHO.