Aliens cause global warming

[SkepticLance]

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.

 

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.

 

To iNow

 

I fully understand about multiple factors influencing climate. I was trying to keep things simple, and avoid extra pointless argument about something that did not matter.

[iNow]

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."

 

Much like you did here:

 

I was trying to keep things simple, and avoid extra pointless argument about something that did not matter.

I suppose it does not matter "because you said so?"

 

 

 

 

I remain convinced of my position that there is no need to limit the dataset to the past 30 years.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I was trying to avoid going back to an argument that never ended. It was pointless arguing because there was no chance of agreement.

[Pangloss]

 

Pangloss - Maybe a new thread is in order? If it stays here, I'm going to slam you for all of your strawmen, false dichotomies, and appeals rooted in logical fallacy.

 

It's revealing that you threaten like that -- and nobody replies.

 

And of course your statement itself stands as further evidence of my point, which is that you're attempting to silence opposition and dissent.

 

 

So which statement is more correct?

 

Actually I do seem to have lost track there a bit. I stand by what I said earlier, but I allowed myself to be distracted from my real point.

 

As I said before, even the IPCC agrees that human contribution is not proven, but rather only 90% likely (in their estimation, which is based on statistical correlation and a handful of small-scale cause-and-effect observations).

 

So my point is this: Even if we agree that human contribution is extremely likely, even probably the cause, why is it necessary to stop people from saying things like "it may not be the cause", or "there are other possibilities", or "we don't know that for a fact yet"? Why must these statements be silenced? Why must we ostracize the people who make them?

 

That is not science, swansont. It just is not. That's POLITICS, sir. Politics.

 

And therefore, QED, I am not the one who brought politics into this thread. Not by a long shot. So iNow, if you want to get politics out of this discussion, you know exactly where to start to accomplish that. You can start by not telling people to "shut up".

[iNow]

It's revealing that you threaten like that -- and nobody replies.

 

And of course your statement itself stands as further evidence of my point, which is that you're attempting to silence opposition and dissent.

 

<...>

 

So iNow, if you want to get politics out of this discussion, you know exactly where to start to accomplish that. You can start by not telling people to "shut up".

 

You really just don't get it, do you?

 

 

Notice my original comment about shutting up had a conditional statement surrounding it... as in "If you don't support your claims, and if your claims are proven invalid, THEN shut up."

 

You teach programming. Surely you understand the if/then statement.

 

My comment to you was more of a courtesy than anything else. How can a simple forum member "threaten" a staff member? I cannot delete your posts like you can mine. I cannot infract you like you can me. I can only show you wrong, and I can only do so in a way to exemplifies your ignorance.

 

It was a courtesty. An attempt to get you to stop politicizing this, and look at the data. Sorry for trying to be nice, and trying to maintain a mature relationship with you.

 

 

What data have I posted that is wrong? What data do you have that challenges that which I've shared? If the answer is, "none," then you really should shut up.

[bombus]

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.

[Dak]

iNow, Have you proven that we won't change to using nuclear or renewable power? Have you proven that we won't invent a successful fusion power plant within 100 years? Have you proven that the warming won't cause an increase in plant and algae growth? Have you proven that we won't start taking some preventative measures, such as fertilizing the ocean with iron, or using terra preta to put carbon into the soil? This is a very limited list, and I can expand further on the difficulties of predicting the future if you wish.

 

Most of the predictions make predictions based on given scenarioes: e.g., if we carry on as we are, x will probably happen; if we half our CO2 emmissions by 2020, y will probably happen. iow, the predictions are not blind to the fact that we could alter our behaviour in responce to the situation.

 

Can you be a little more specific about this genuine error you speak of, and one that hasn't been debunked yet?

 

I think what lance is getting at is this:

 

1/the GW models...

2/...state with x% certainty...

3/...that y will happen if z

 

when you say 'we know the variables and the uncertainty is factored into the predictions', you're only really addressing parts 2 and 3. if we assume that the GW predictions are absolutely correct, then when the GW predictions state that something is x% likely to happen, then it is x% likely to happen; however, you also have to factor in that the GW predictions may be innaccurate, not only in their predictions but also in their assessment of the surity of their predictions.

 

personally, i think it's solid-enough science, and there's enough effort being put into it, the we can accept the predictions with a relitively high confidence that they'll turn out to be pretty accurate.

[swansont]

As I said before, even the IPCC agrees that human contribution is not proven, but rather only 90% likely (in their estimation, which is based on statistical correlation and a handful of small-scale cause-and-effect observations).

 

The most likely reason the IPCC did not used "proven" is because, when scientists are careful in choosing their words (as they would in a paper or report) they know that nothing in science is ever proven.

 

What science isn't based on statistical correlation and smaller scale cause-and-effect observations? That's hardly a valid criticism of this topic. But a "handful?" How many papers in a handful?

 

So my point is this: Even if we agree that human contribution is extremely likely, even probably the cause, why is it necessary to stop people from saying things like "it may not be the cause", or "there are other possibilities", or "we don't know that for a fact yet"? Why must these statements be silenced? Why must we ostracize the people who make them?

 

I don't know what you think contitutes stopping people from saying these things. People have done research into various potential contributions (e.g. cosmic rays and solar variation) but the result is that once these contributions have been quantified, they are found not to be nearly sufficient to explain the results. If you have evidence of people being censored, provide it. But Richard Black looked into it, and found very little.

 

That is not science, swansont. It just is not. That's POLITICS, sir. Politics.

 

And therefore, QED, I am not the one who brought politics into this thread. Not by a long shot. So iNow, if you want to get politics out of this discussion, you know exactly where to start to accomplish that. You can start by not telling people to "shut up".

 

You have removed the context of iNow's statement. It was rude, but it was also "You really need to support your contention or shut up about it." and came after SkepticLance had made the same contention/prediction, several times, with no science backing it up.

 

In context, it was not, as you seem to imply, silencing the critics. There was nothing preemptive about it; it came after repeated calls for evidence.

 

But, iNow, you could have phrased that better.

[SkepticLance]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

On the business of a habitat. You are trying to define habitat loss as almost any habitat change. That is not correct. Sure, once change gets to a certain point, we can define it as habitat loss. But where we draw the line is a damn sight further along that just introducing one, two, or three new species. This happens all the time in a natural way, with animals and plants altering their dispersal. 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."

 

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. 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.

 

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.

 

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?

[Mr Skeptic]

Most of the predictions make predictions based on given scenarioes: e.g., if we carry on as we are, x will probably happen; if we half our CO2 emmissions by 2020, y will probably happen. iow, the predictions are not blind to the fact that we could alter our behaviour in responce to the situation.

 

This is acceptable to me. However, many people are overdoing it, and claiming that we know for sure that the unregulated trend human-produced CO2 will bring a catastrophe. I understand the desire to phrase things that way, as it is much easier to convince people to change their ways with such statements, but I disagree with it.

 

I think it is important to do a cost-benefit analysis with respect to our CO2 output, keeping in mind that earlier action will be extra effective, but that we will also have better technology in the future. I think that the possibility of adapting should also be considered. I'm not convinced that immediate and drastic action needs to be taken, but consider it a possibility as well. Perhaps we should start a new thread about immediate and drastic action wrt CO2?

[Reaper]

Yay! Semantic word games, let me play >:D":

 

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.

 

I've not read the Quran, does that make me unqualified to criticize their claims?

 

I've also not read a whole bunch of other books and literature known to be false or very subjective, but does that mean that I can't criticize them based on their claims?

 

You really only have to know what the claims are in order to criticize them.

 

 

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.

 

I'll break this into two parts

 

1) There were four people that criticized the book and, whatever affiliation these guys may have is 2) irrelevant. It doesn't matter if their environmentalists, the only thing that matters is if they are correct or have a strong case (meaning that they have scientific evidence to back them up). Well, actually, the critics happen to be environmental EXPERTS in the field, and it certainly shows.

 

I'm not convinced that immediate and drastic action needs to be taken, but consider it a possibility as well. Perhaps we should start a new thread about immediate and drastic action wrt CO2?

 

I don't think drastic measures need to be taken. I'm sure that if people did simple things such as turn off their lights when not in use, or recycle, or use their cars a little less often (or started buying hybrids or other cars that use alternative fuels), predictions wouldn't quite as dire. It is the everyday habits that are killing us, not necessarily the factories or power plants that rely on fossil fuels;).

 

If people actually knew (or cared) what was going on, we could have this problem well under control and it would be much easier and faster to switch over to the newer, more efficient and improved technologies.

 

 

But, they don't.

 

personally, i think it's solid-enough science, and there's enough effort being put into it, the we can accept the predictions with a relitively high confidence that they'll turn out to be pretty accurate.

 

I agree.

[SkepticLance]

To Lockheed

 

Yes there were indeed four people criticising Lomborg in SciAm.

 

However, the point is that they were carefully chosen by ONE man. He picked those he could be sure would reflect his own prejudices.

 

In spite of their expertise, they were able only to pick a very small number of errors from Lomborg's book, and mounted a massive attack based on those few errors. As I said before, if I could write 352 pages of small print and make only 9 errors, I would be a genius!

[swansont]

Yay! Semantic word games, let me play >:D":

 

 

 

I've not read the Quran, does that make me unqualified to criticize their claims?

 

I've also not read a whole bunch of other books and literature known to be false or very subjective, but does that mean that I can't criticize them based on their claims?

 

You really only have to know what the claims are in order to criticize them.

 

 

That's true. But you'd better be sure the summaries of those claims are accurate; the barriers to inadvertently creating strawman or otherwise invalid arguments becomes a whole lot lower when you aren't criticizing the primary work.

 

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.

 

Yes there were indeed four people criticising Lomborg in SciAm.

 

However, the point is that they were carefully chosen by ONE man. He picked those he could be sure would reflect his own prejudices.

 

On the other hand, you also have to be sure not to use fallacies when defending, as well. Like poisoning the well and ad hominem.

 

In spite of their expertise, they were able only to pick a very small number of errors from Lomborg's book, and mounted a massive attack based on those few errors. As I said before, if I could write 352 pages of small print and make only 9 errors, I would be a genius!

 

That would depend on the errors, now wouldn't it? That nine errors were critiqued does not automatically imply that those were the only errors; it stands to reason that they were the largest or most obvious errors, in most need of critique, so it's possible that there were more (magazines have different space restrictions than a book). And of course there could be plenty of correct analysis that can be invalidated by a single wrong premise. Counting the number of errors critiqued is simply the wrong metric; context matters.

[Pangloss]

The most likely reason the IPCC did not used "proven" is because, when scientists are careful in choosing their words (as they would in a paper or report) they know that nothing in science is ever proven.

 

What science isn't based on statistical correlation and smaller scale cause-and-effect observations? That's hardly a valid criticism of this topic. But a "handful?" How many papers in a handful?

 

What science is based on drawing conclusions when you know for a fact that your data sampling fails to account for every variable?

 

I disagree (OMG an opinion! everybody panic!), I think the reason the IPCC didn't call it certain is that it ISN'T certain. It's sheer hubris to think we've accounted for all the variables in the equation of the Earth.

 

No, actually, not hubris. Politics.

 

 

 

I don't know what you think contitutes stopping people from saying these things.

 

Telling opponents to shut up, refusing to allow valid objections to be raised, standing idly by while some members counter them with incorrect, illogical, erroneous responses and then other members, who KNOW BETTER, allow those erroneous responses to stand, and general rudeness toward politically incorrect members. Amongst other things.

 

I go around the web and I see perfectly rational people in scientific forums discussing reasonable objections to the human contribution issue, and yet we cannot seem to do the same thing here. Why is that? I see other science forums' members agree to disagree and respectfully leave things unresolved because they recognize that both sides have valid points. Why can't we do that here?

 

If we can't, that does not mean we've established some great scientific truth that nobody else has yet realized. If we can't respectfully listen to two logical, scientifically valid, well-reasoned sides of an argument then something is clearly wrong.

[bombus]

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.

[Mr Skeptic]

bombus, I think you may be inadvertantly attacking a strawman. If you are defining "habitat" differently than Lomborg, then you are putting words into his mouth.

 

As for your argument from authority, well, no further comment is necessary.

 

Edit: is there a distinction between species-habitat and ecosystem-habitat?

[SkepticLance]

bombus said :

 

"anyone who thinks habitat loss is not linked to species extinction is not worthy of my attention"

 

Lomborg never said, and nor did I say, that habitat loss was not related to extinction. What he said, and I agree with, is that it is a minor cause of extinction - not a major cause as is claimed by the greenie dogma.

 

If habitat loss is associated with another cause of extinction, then of course it makes the situation worse. However, there are lots of cases where other causes are singularly the cause, and very, very few cases where habitat loss is singularly the cause, unless you go with your rather weird definition of habitat loss.

 

It is interesting that the man who was chosen to attack Lomborg on ecology was Edward O Wilson. Professor Wilson is a very intelligent and expert scientist, but definitely not lacking in bias. He is the man who is behind a great deal of the 'habitat loss is the major cause of extinction' dogma. He came up with equations for calculating extinction rate based on the amount of habitat lost. Those equations have been tested empirically and found to be invalid, but are still used by organisations such as Greenpeace to calculate exaggerated and phony extinction rates. Wilson sticks by his disproved equations, which makes him very suspect as an 'expert' on this subject.

 

bombus also 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.

 

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.

 

For example : when the two sub-continents of North America and South America drifted together, to meet at the Isthmus of Panama, two quite different sets of ecosystems suddenly had geographic continuity. This happened quite recently in geological or biological time. A heap of animals promptly invaded the other sub-continent. This led to a wave of extinctions. Yet the habitats in each zone remained the same. The South American rain forest was still the South American rain forest.

 

The various ecosystems were changed, but to the degree you can call it loss of habitat? If the change was caused by humans I am sure lots of people would so define it. But this was caused by 'natural' causes, and I suspect that most ecologists would not define it as loss of habitat. I have certainly never seen it so described.

 

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?

 

"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 decided to see if I could find a definition for habitat loss. Here is what the Wiki article says

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction

 

I quote :

 

"Habitat destruction is a process of land use change in which one habitat-type is removed and replaced with another habitat-type. In the process of land-use change, plants and animals which previously used the site are displaced or destroyed, reducing biodiversity. Urban Sprawl is one cause of habitat destruction. Other important causes of habitat destruction include mining, trawling, and agriculture."

 

I would suggest that this is closer to the way I use the term than the way bombus uses it. I gave examples being deforestation or draining wetlands and lakes. Bombus would have us believe that it happens when an alien species enters a habitat, even though the habitat stays otherwise unchanged.

[bombus]

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).

[SkepticLance]

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.

 

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.

[JohnB]

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.

 

By (probably a rather poor) analogy. When all higher lifeforms die, their heart stops beating. Does that mean all deaths of higher lifeforms are due to "heart failure"?

 

With or without man, climates change and so do habitats. Any creature so specialised as to require no competition or no change in habitat is doomed.

[iNow]

This response is to you Pangloss. My response to you does not mean I do not see similar issues in other posts. My response to you does not mean that my own arguments are always without these issues. My response to you is not meant to silence you, nor to attack you for your opinion.

 

[/disclaimer in hopes of clarity and understanding]

 

 

 

 

What science is based on drawing conclusions when you know for a fact that your data sampling fails to account for every variable?

Your question is bifurcated, and also presents a non-sequitur from the topic being discussed. Anyone engaging in science concedes the absence of absolute certainty, so the above is a false dichotomy. Results are shared with confidence ratings. Results are not labelled as "certain" versus "unceratain." Regardless, this does not dictate that the results which ARE shared cannot be trusted or used to support one's position.

 

The second part of your comment is a strawman, since those presenting the data do not suggest their data "accounts for every variable." I think perhaps this comment is in response to a member here suggesting that the confidence in our data is EXTREMELY high.

 

IMO, to continue this approach in this this thread is simply a semantic quibble of little relevance.

 

 

 

I disagree (OMG an opinion! everybody panic!),

This now is an appeal to ridicule.

 

 

I think the reason the IPCC didn't call it certain is that it ISN'T certain.

And nobody has suggested otherwise. You responded directly to swansont, and my reading implies that this was precisely his point.

 

However, arguing about a study's certainty must be done on a continuum. Certainty is not a binary issue, but a statistical one (also addressed by swansont).

 

 

It's sheer hubris to think we've accounted for all the variables in the equation of the Earth.

You have now presented another strawman. Nobody has suggested that "we've accounted for all the variables in the equation of the Earth."

 

 

Additionally, since the definition of hubris is:

...a negative term implying both arrogant, excessive self-pride or self-confidence, and also a hamartia, a lack of some important perception or insight due to pride in one's abilities.

 

 

... you have now used an ad hominem, attacking the presenter instead of their information. I might go so far as to call this an appeal to ridicule as well, but the strawman and ad hominem parts are abundantly clear, so I won't push that issue too hard.

 

 

No, actually, not hubris. Politics.

This particular fallacy might best be described as amphiboly, however, most won't recognize that. In this case, equivocation seems to fit best.

 

 

Telling opponents to shut up

Again, this was presented conditionally, not as a demand. It was a suggestion raised out of frustration, frustration resulting from the disregard for repeated requests for support of the members position. However, I agree with swansont that I did phrase it poorly and could have been more diplomatic.

 

 

refusing to allow valid objections to be raised

First, nobody has refused to allow anything. The objections have been raised, and they've been challenged.

 

Further, your suggestion that the objections were valid (despite clear evidence presented to the contrary and the lack of support for those objections) is a blatant misrpresentation/misunderstanding on your part.

 

 

standing idly by while some members counter them with incorrect, illogical, erroneous responses and then other members

Besides the appeal to shame and tu quoque fallacies you've just directed at swansont, would you please explicity show us which responses were 1) incorrect, 2) illogical, and 3) erroneous? Currently, these seem unfounded, and appear clearly to be hasty generalizations.

 

 

who KNOW BETTER

Another appeal to shame.

 

allow those erroneous responses to stand, and general rudeness toward politically incorrect members.

Another strawman, another non-specific accusation, and an appeal to pity ta boot.

 

 

I go around the web and I see perfectly rational people in scientific forums discussing reasonable objections to the human contribution issue, and yet we cannot seem to do the same thing here.

Non-sequitur. Also, a HUGELY biased conclusion considering all of the posts on SFN. Stop appealing to pity.

 

 

Why is that? I see other science forums' members agree to disagree and respectfully leave things unresolved because they recognize that both sides have valid points. Why can't we do that here?

False dichotomy. People agree to disagree respectfully here all of the time.

 

You have done nothing to counter the data, nor shown any of your own. Stop flailing your arms about and bring some science to support your doubt, or to counter that which is shared.

 

 

If we can't respectfully listen to two logical, scientifically valid, well-reasoned sides of an argument then something is clearly wrong.

 

WE HAVE LISTENED!!!! The data they presented has been proven invalid.

 

Science isn't based on opinion. If you disagree, support your contention. If you disagree, show where my contentions are false. Please stop with the logical fallacies and soapboxing and please focus on the data.

 

If you have a problem with a particular point, I'm sure everyone here will openly listen to your criticism, and look into the issue. It's not their fault if your criticism doesn't hold up against scrutiny.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I do not think that anyone on this forum lacks an ability to understand uncertainty. What we argue about, rather, is the question of how uncertain?

 

For example : I accept that the relationship between global CO2 increase, global temperature increase, and human activity is pretty sound over the past 30 years. I see a very simple relationship there, and little sign of significant impact from other known variables such as vulcanism and sunspot activity.

 

However, I am only too aware that the times before that included a raft of other factors, and a reduced CO2/human act factor, due to the fact that CO2was increasing a lot more slowly. Thus, the statement that humans cause CO2 rise which is the main cause of temperature rise, for the periods before 1976, I consider to be a much shakier conclusion.

 

There is also a bit of a problem when we are arguing with you personally, in that you are sometimes reluctant to accept data which is quite valid. You are also reluctant to accept logic. Yet logic is a valid form of argument.

 

When I was trying to tell you the rate of warming over the past 30 years, I twice posted references, which you rejected. It was ironic, since the information I was presenting was not in the least controversial. It was universally accepted by climate scientists. However, you had chosen, for whatever reason, to reject the references. That tends to upset the people presenting data. If you reject data, I suggest you had better have a good reason.

 

This is all very human, of course. My current argument with bombus, who has redefined habitat loss to include any case of alien species introduction, is a case in point. When a person's world view is threatened, that person will often switch to less rational argument. It takes a special kind of person, who applies good scientific self discipline, to rise above that tendency.

[iNow]

When a person's world view is threatened, that person will often switch to less rational argument. It takes a special kind of person, who applies good scientific self discipline, to rise above that tendency.

 

Please show me specifically where I've switched to a less rational argument due to a threat to my world view. I would like to correct faults in my approach.

[bombus]

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).

[swansont]

When I was trying to tell you the rate of warming over the past 30 years, I twice posted references, which you rejected. It was ironic, since the information I was presenting was not in the least controversial. It was universally accepted by climate scientists. However, you had chosen, for whatever reason, to reject the references. That tends to upset the people presenting data. If you reject data, I suggest you had better have a good reason.

 

Well, you provided graphs, which is a presentation of data, but they did not say from where the data came. I can't speak for iNow, but my interpretation of that exchange is this: Without knowing which data were under scrutiny, nothing would prevent someone else coming in and using a different set of data to attempt to make a contradicting point. The thing is, there are many examples of people cherry-picking data in order to support their contention in posts/discussions elsewhere on the net. My take is this was a pre-emptive request to make sure everyone was looking at the same data, methodologies and analysis.