Global warming is a ruse. There is no evidence contemporary global
warming will cause sea level rise, for example. Sea levels are pretty
high anyways. warm the atmosphere, more water goes into the air, more is
cycled onto land. Will sea levels rise? Will it make some great
difference, especially with respect to mass extinction? I, at least
don't see it. More storms? Even if so, so what? heat waves? Is that a
joke? It surely is silly.
Habitat conversion is the sole cause of human induced mass extinctions.
When we advocate on the issue of CO2, we are buying into a meaningless
ruse that more and more looks like nothing more than a means to generate
revenue for people who want to invest in wind and solar power
distribution.
Rob Hamilton
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet
unfound most would have thought impossible"
John Milton
________________________________________
Robert G. Hamilton
Department of Biological Sciences
Mississippi College
P.O. Box 4045
200 South Capitol Street
Clinton, MS 39058
Phone: (601) 925-3872
FAX (601) 925-3978
This communication may contain confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient or if you are not authorized to receive it,
please notify and return the message to the sender. Unauthorized
reviewing, forwarding, copying, distributing or using this infomration
is strictly prohibited.
malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> 5/22/2009 9:34
PM >>>
You are correct. Joe and Jane just don't care.
Our ethical structure is based on anthropocentrism, and until the
overall philosophy of
modern society changes, we must operate within that realm. The
problem is they are
also EXTREMELY short-sighted.
The upside?
Remember in Star Wars Episode 1 when Quagon (sp?) says that "greed can
be a powerful ally?"
Well this is true of all vices.
So what about anthropocentrism and short-sightedness can be capitalized
on?
Rather than trying to change the world, something that takes forever,
maybe we should
be trying to work within its bounds????
So, what can we as leaders identify to accomplish our agenda to "save
the rest of the world and humanity from humanity?"
Anyone care to brainstorm????
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Brendan Rogers <brog...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Okay, I'm the average Joe or Jane, concerned with my kids'
educations,
mortgage payments, a failing economy, crime, and sometimes
endangered
species. When the media warns of global warming, they most often cite
three
reasons why I should care:
1) more heat waves
2) more storms
3) sea level rise
I'm thinking, 100 years ago we hadn't flown a plane, landed on the
moon, or
fought off the Nazis. We didn't have computers, cell phones, or the
internet. Why is everyone so up-tight about global warming if all we
have to
conquer in the next 100 years are some more heat waves, a few more
hurricanes, and some lost shoreline?? Sounds like a fairly short
order.
Now, I know. I'm a graduate student studying climate change. I
understand
the interconnected ecology of the natural world and how rapid climate
change
can be detrimental to its fabric in the geologic short-term. What I
don't
understand is why hardly anybody mentions mass extinctions when they
warn of
global warming. Here's what I can gather: as far as we know, there
have been
five major mass extinctions in Earth's history where up to 95% of
all
species vanish. Most believe all five were either directly or
indirectly
results of rapid climate change. Right now, today, when the effects
of
climate change are beginning to be felt but pale in comparison to
those
likely ahead of us, extinctions are occurring at a rate orders of
magnitude
above the pre-historical "background rate". This is mainly from
habitat
destruction and invasive introductions. However, add to this rapid
climate
change where even mobile species must negotiate a patchwork landscape
of
roads, agriculture, and cities. Can you imagine an Earth with 95% of
its
species lost? I can't.
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something or maybe my information is
off. If
it's not, then maybe mass extinction just isn't that big a deal. If
it is a
big deal, and I'm pretty sure of that one, then maybe Joe and Jane
just
don't care that much. But if we can get the general public to care
about
pandas and koalas and spotted owls, surely we can get them to care
about the
rest. The truth is, I think I know the answer. People need
consequences that
can directly relate to them, someone they know, or for the slightly
more
enlightened, some other group of people. But the rest of the
environment
becomes a bit more removed and theoretical. Plus, climate change
isn't an
issue that can be solved by the preservation of some wildlands or
even by
mildly altered behaviors. It requires a whole-sale restructuring of
our
global energy grid, and if we succeed, there will be significant
short-term
economic repercussions. But I'm still left wondering why no one TRIES
to
communicate this threat to the public. Any opinions are greatly
welcomed.
Humbly,
Brendan Rogers
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Associate Professor of Biology
Texas A&M University-Texarkana
Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology
http://www.herpconbio.org
http://www.twitter.com/herpconbio
Fall Teaching Schedule & Office Hours:
Landscape Ecology: T,R 10-11:40 pm
Environmental Physiology: MW 1-2:40 pm
Seminar: T 2:30-3:30pm
Genetics: M 6-10pm
Office Hours: M 3-6, T: 12-2, W: 3-4
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
