SkepticLance

Actually, I have no illusions about being smarter than thousands of scientists. There are thousands of scientists who, like me, are sceptical of the global warming catastrophist's predictions. This includes hundreds of climate scientists. On the complexity of global climate computer models. The people constructing such models are still working on them with some urgency. Why? Because they are seriously imperfect. It has been noted on a number of occasions that such models cannot predict cloud formation properly, and cannot predict what different cloud formations will do to global temperature. This point is one that has been made strongly by those climate scientists who are sceptical of the more extreme predictions of the catastrophe enthusiasts. So, in spite of the protests, global computer climate models are seriously imperfect.

I think that Sayonara is trying to win a point by quibbling about definitions, and bombus by skirting around the main point, instead of contronting it. There is no argument against the idea that loss of habitat is a contributing factor to many species extinctions. However, what I see as the major causes (alien species introductions, and over-hunting/fishing by humans) have many, many examples where they are clearly the sole causes of said extinctions. Loss of habitat lacks this distinction. When I started this thread, I was essentially testing a statement by Lomborg, and seeing if anyone could come up with examples to disprove his statement. I think that those who replied have proved that loss of habitat is often an important contributor to extinctions, but rarely a sole cause.

Craig Ventner, famous for work on the human genome, is working on a simplified bacterium that can manufacture hydrogen gas. Not only is this synthetic life, it is useful synthetic life! Is it playing God? That is a religious question. As a non believer, I say: is it playing what?

Potassium/Argon. The isotope Potassium 40 degrades to Argon 40. This is happening continuously at a known rate. The Argon 40 present in a rock is entirely from this process. The interesting thing, which permits dating, is that Argon is a gas. This means that if the rock turns liquid, such as in volcanic lava, all the Argon bubbles out and escapes. When the rock turns solid again, only Potassium 40 is present and no Argon 40. However, the Potassium 40 degrades at a known rate, and the Argon 40 starts to build up. Since the rock is now solid, the gas cannot escape, and stays in the rock. If we take a sample of rock, and measure the amounts of the two isotopes, we get a ratio. The existing tables tell us from the ratio how long it has been since the rock was liquid. If a rock sample is found between two layers of solidified lava, we can use the K40/Ar40 dating process to determine when the upper and lower rocks were liquid. The sample in between must have been deposited between the two times.

A press release from the University of Otago on smoking. The tobacco death burden in developed and Eastern European countries is equivalent to the impact of a 9/11-type terrorist attack every 14 hours, according to a newly published study by University of Otago public health researchers. Estimated annual deaths from tobacco were approximately 5,700 times greater than those from international terrorist attacks, according to public health researchers Dr George Thomson and Dr Nick Wilson of the University’s Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences. The researchers compared the estimated 1.9 million people in developed and Eastern European countries who died from tobacco in the year 2000, with the 3298 lives lost in international terrorist attacks in these same countries between 1994 and 2003. “We found that the absolute annual burden from tobacco use was highest for the United States at 514,000 deaths per year in 2000, which is equivalent to the impact of an 9/11 type terrorist attack every 2.1 days,” says Dr Thomson.

1veedo I have not misrepresented the climate system. My statement that 1910 to 1940 temperature rise correlates more closely with sunspot activity than with greenhouse gas increase is totally correct. And there is a very big difference between computer climate models of the entire world, and the method used to estimate average global temperature in any one year. Even the latter is not without controversy. The more complex the manipulation of data, the more likely to introduce significant error. If you have an appreciation of reality, you will admit this simple fact.

To Jackson. You are correct about the damage to society caused by alcohol. Let me refine my definition a little. When I said inhaling tobacco smoke was the most damaging vice, I was thinking in terms of deaths. World-wide, there are at least 2 million deaths per year, caused by inhaling tobacco smoke. WHO suspects that the true number is much higher, but it is difficult to get statistics from many third world countries. Here in little old New Zealand, we have 400 deaths per year in car accidents, and 15,000 due to inhaling tobacco smoke. Puts it into perspective! If the percentage of the population killed that way in NZ was true for the rest of the world, that would mean more than 20 million deaths per year. That would make tobacco smoke by far the biggest killer of humans on this planet. I have no way of knowing if that is anywhere near true, but it may help to illustrate how terrible the problem is.

1veedo said : So basically you distrust science and this is why you're posting at scienceforums.net. When we get into debate, simplification of our views is something we all must do to get a point across. If we could not do that, we would all have to take about ten years hard work, and the equivalent of a Ph.D. thesis to complete an argument. Science, at its most basic, is set upon the foundation of objectively derived empirical evidence. This is where I start. This is where we should all start. When we 'manipulate' the data, we introduce potential for error. The more we manipulate data, the higher the probability that significant error will creep in. Certain basic calculations are needed, as you pointed out. Thus, averaging temperatures to get a global temperature change, is a simple manipulation of the data, which is needed. As you also pointed out, a simple calculation on sunspot numbers is needed to show a trend in that parameter. These simple calculations are unlikely to introduce much error. It is when we go into more complex manipulations of the data that the potential for substantial error increases. It is these calculations that I most distrust. I trust that this expansion of my views from the original simplified statement will allow some extra understanding.

Sayonara. Perhaps you might like to suggest a way to get past this. Perhaps you could suggest a definition, that permits 'loss of habitat' to include such things as deforestation, drying of lakes and ponds, desertification of previously lush areas, flooding by hydro lakes etc; while excluding over-hunting by people, and introduction of alien species, and pollution. There are, of course, lots of examples of natural loss of habitat, such as caused by volcanoes, landslides etc. I would rather we kept the discussion to human caused events.

To Sayonara I am not sure I like the current direction of this thread. It is rapidly turning into a discussion of semantics. I do not realy see the difficulty. Loss of habitat is something we are all well aware of. We see it in the news every day. It is substantially different to over hunting etc. If we look at alternative causes of extinction, such as the over-hunting and introduction of aliens, then these have effects over a wide range of habitats. When the brown snake was introduced into Guam, it spread to all parts of the island - forest, town, seashore etc. The extinctions it caused were in all areas. Loss of habitat affects only one kind of habitat. If we are talking about, for example, the flooding that comes with the construction of a hydro dam, then that is clearly loss of habitat - not over hunting etc. Here in New Zealand, when the first polynesian people arrived 800 years ago, they destroyed about one third of the rain forest. This is clearly loss of habitat. They also hunted into extinction 11 species of moa bird, to provide them with food. They also introduced the polynesian rat, which caused many other extinctions of small bird species. I do not see why it is so hard for you to distinguish between loss of habitat and other causes.

To swansont One of the themes you (plural, as in my debate opponents) have mentioned several times is quantifying influences. I do not believe we can do that with any accuracy. I have seen figures calculated by IPCC which are very much at odds with the raw data. This makes me cautious about believing those results. There are two extreme views in the global warming debate, and both extremes appear to be willing to be dishonest to put their views across. As I said earlier, Dr. Stephen Schneider (global warming catastrophist) once admitted in an interview to exaggerating data to make people more aware of harmful consequences. IPCC made the statement that 90% of global warming over the past 50 years is due to greenhouse gases. Since the first 20 years of that 50 year period were actually global cooling, that is a very dishonest and misleading statement. As a result, I do not simply accept what global warming enthusiasts, or global warming deniers say, as being true. I am only interested in data. I distrust the results of complex calculations, and generally assume they are likely to be in error. I believe the sorry record of deceit on both sides of this argument makes my suspicious attitude quite justified.

To Jackson. I have no problem with people engaging in activities that they find enjoyable, even at the cost of a degree of good health. I am known to imbibe substantial amounts of good red wine myself, and no doubt, kill off lots of brain and liver cells. However, of all such habits, inhaling tobacco smoke stands out as being by far the most damaging. I would also question the recreational value of this habit. It has been well established by lots of scientific research just how this thing works metabolically. Nicotine inhibits neurotransmitters. That depresses the nervous system, giving a feeling of relaxation. The problem comes because the nervous system adapts, and makes more neurotransmitters to restore function in spite of the presense of nicotine. This adaptation is the source of addiction. Then the smoker has to inhale more smoke to get the same feeling of relaxation, and the nervous system steps up its neurotransmitter production even more. That is why addicts keep smoking more and more cigarettes to try to regain the relaxed state they first knew. The addiction gets worse. When the smoker eases off the amount of smoke inhaled, the higher level of neurotransmitters causes excitation of the nervous system - the agitation, nervousness etc of the smoker in withdrawal. The smoker then regains the same base level of relaxation that non smokers enjoy all the time, by smoking. He or she then mistakes the restoration of normality as pleasure, which it is not. If a smoker can kick the habit, then after all the suffering is over, and the addiction is gone, that ex-smoker will enjoy the normal human state (not relaxed, but not excited) without the action of nicotine. I prefer my bad habit of drinking red wine. At least the body does not adapt in the same drastic manner, and a couple of glasses of wine will always give me a nice relaxed feel.

To Sayonara No, I am not Lomborg. I am simply someone who bought Lomborg's book and read it. As far as definitions go, I doubt that "loss of habitat" is seriously disagreed with as a definition. When extinctions are discussed in scientific discussion, it generally means the loss of whatever it is that supports the life-form. That includes the plants around it, and various animal life. As I see it, the most common type of loss of habitat would be deforestation. The drying of the Aral Sea might be another example. Landslides a third. Drying of ponds. Desertification of previously fertile plains etc. Lomborg uses several examples of loss of habitat, and all translate as deforestation. I do not think you can, in all honesty, talk about the other main causes of extinctions, and call them loss of habitat. Not in the context of this discussion. That is, over-hunting, over-fishing by humans. Introductions of alien species. Pollution. etc.

Sayonara As I told you some time ago, Lomborg's examples were related primarily to forest habitat, and his text referred to habitat loss in this case as loss of forest. That is : when forest is cut down. If you want to change the definition of habitat loss to include over hunting, or introduction of alien species, or pollution, or global warming or anything else, then we might as well end the discussion. It becomes meaningless by definition. Habitat loss is when a particular habitat is destroyed. Full bloody stop. It is not when something is added, such as another predator. or when a chemical spills into that habitat. Or all the other side issues you or others might want to introduce. Habitat loss is loss of habitat. The habitat is destroyed. Is that simple enough?

1veedo You still have not addressed the fact that greenhouse gas increase 1880 to 1910, which was almost exactly the same as greenhouse gas increase 1910 to 1940, led to totally different results. It is very obvious to me that another factor drove those very different results in terms of warming/cooling. And that other factor must have been far more potent over those years than greenhouse gas increase, since it totally swamped the greenhouse gas effect. We do not have to guess. As I pointed out many times, the data is some kind of solar activity, as shown in changes in sunspot activity.

bombus said : They are in the position they are due to habitat loss (essentially) as grey squirrels have stolen their former habitat. someguy said If you consider all of the animals we don't know about that go extinct because of humans they must pretty much be all from destruction of habitat. The above two quotes are argument by definition modification. If we go down that path, we might as well alter the definition to say that all human over hunting, alien introductions, pollution, etc are all just habitat destruction, and therefore all extinctions are due to habitat destruction by definition.

There is a simple experiment that you can do that shows something of the toxic potency of tobacco smoke. If you suck the smoke from a burning cigarette through water in a flask using a vacuum pump, you will see how quickly that water goes brown. If by comparison, you inhale the smoke first, then blow it out through the flask of water, you will see it goes brown at a very substantially slower rate. The reason is that human lungs make an excellent filtering mechanism, and remove the toxic brown tars most efficiently. The tar remains in the lungs, as dissection of dead smokers has shown very clearly. This concentration of toxic material into the lungs of smokers compares with, for example, the amount of toxin entering the lungs of a person driving a diesel truck. While the diesel exhaust is not nice stuff, and is harmful to health, even carcinogenic, it is small potatoes compared to tobacco smoke directly inhaled, in terms of total mass of toxin remaining in the lungs.

swansont You are a stubborn cuss. I just agreed with you! Tell me, if the variations in correlation at different times in history do not reflect a relative change in the influence of the various factors driving global warming/cooling, then what do they reflect?

Sounds pretty inconclusive. No reason why Homo erectus should not have built shelters and even lived in them in groups - forming a kind of village, temporary or otherwise. I suspect they were not permanent, though. Homo erectus was a hunter gatherer, and that way of life does not lend itself to staying in one place. Local game animals get too wary. Edible plants get dug up and eaten. Hunter gatherers tend to have to keep moving.

The only figure I have is called the 60:60 rule. It applies to long term medium smokers (2 packs per day). The rule says 60% will die before age 60. Since I am now 58 I am glad I never smoked! Obviously, individual susceptibility varies enormously, and a few smokers live long lives. A lot more die young. I believe the main cause of death under the 60:60 rule is heart disease.

lucaspa Agreed that the mirror test is not an accepted test for sentience. The reason I suggested it, is that it appears to correlate with higher thought processes. The only animals to have passed that test are those we would expect to have higher thought, as shown by brain size relative to body size, complex social interaction, ability to learn to use tools, etc. The mirror test is a nice simple test, that does not depend on any particular pre-learning or 'culture'. I suspect that other species will be shown to pass that test in the next few years. More cetaceans, and possibly even some birds. Several members of the parrot and crow families have well developed forebrains, a brain size to body size ratio as high as chimps, and apparently well developed communication skills. Some, like New Zealand's kea parrot, and the New Caledonian crow have even been seen to use tools.

swansont This is the closest we have come to agreement, which means something is finally going right. I have said all along that global warming is multi-factorial. The correlation from 1910 to 1940 is strongest with sunspot activity. You are correct in saying that is not the case with every decade or several decades over the past few centuries. It seems that other factors have a stronger relative effect at those times.

bombus We are talking about extinction of species. When the last individual of that species is dead, the species is extinct. I am not sure how relevent localised extinctions are. Even in pristine environments where human impact is minimal, there are always a few species that are low in number. Some may survive as a species for millions of years, in spite of low numbers. Certainly, in the fossil record, there are organisms with hard shells or bones that fossilise well, which are nevertheless found in only very small numbers, but over long periods. Thus, the significance of a species being low in number, in terms of extinction risk, is not clear cut.

Swansont said : But, as I believe you've said before, this time it's different, and we're focused on very recent history. The last ~100 years does not show correlation over all of that span. That is correct. I have not been arguing against that point. I have simply said that sunspot activity correlates better to warming for the period 1910 to 1940 than does greenhouse gas. 1veedo said : You have to understand that the climate is much more complicated than what you're making it out to be. There isn't always one dominant factor at work. Again you put words in my mouth. As I said only a post or two back, climate is multi-factorial. However, greenhouse gas increase in the early part of the 20th Century was minor compared to what we saw a few decades later, and the correlation with warming was much stronger with sunspot activity, until 1940. 1veedo also said the positive forcing from CO2 is present throughout the entire century not just the latter half That is undoubtedly correct, since CO2 is increasing throughout. However, the impact for the period in terms of warming is clearly lower than the impact of whatever is happening in the sun when sunspot activity is high, at least until 1940.

John Cuthber said : Would you like to revisit your opinion of Greenpeace's sincerity? I had a look at the reference you posted on Greenpeace Japan. It was a bit hard to see what you were referring to. Perhaps you could specify? There is a general principle that applies to all human organisations. It does not matter if it is volunteers, big business, government departments, or the corner family grocery store. When an organisation is set up, it is for a specific purpose, often idealistic. However, over time the purpose changes. Eventually the number one goal is to ensure the survivial and prosperity of the organisation and its members. This definitely applies to Greenpeace. One of its founders, Dr. Patrick Moore, left in disgust a few years ago and set up his own environmental organisation, for the basic reason that Greenpeace had gone off the rails. In this, Greenpeace is no different to a million other organisations. Changing the basic goal from the ideal to survival and prosperity is a very human thing.