tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post2649405463685749047..comments2024-03-18T03:27:18.777-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Normal ScienceEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21984250310440374582016-01-04T21:20:49.546-05:002016-01-04T21:20:49.546-05:00It was McIntyre grade squireily of Al to kill th...It was McIntyre grade squireily of Al to kill the graph without a corrigendum. THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45936003550256271472016-01-04T18:33:43.785-05:002016-01-04T18:33:43.785-05:00It's more of a squirrel, Bernard. Tangential, ...It's more of a squirrel, Bernard. Tangential, unassuming, and mildly funny.<br /><br />Squirrels may outlast ClimateBall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23439454567439264522016-01-04T05:27:38.427-05:002016-01-04T05:27:38.427-05:00Fair point Russell, although the latter can be det...Fair point Russell, although the latter can be determined in a manner similar to the way that populations are estimated by mark-recapture techniques.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69914975362961907992016-01-04T00:44:16.332-05:002016-01-04T00:44:16.332-05:00My int is that , most species being nondescript, t...My int is that , most species being nondescript, the present rate of species discovery is better quantified ( circa 18,000 a year ) than the rate of extinction. <br /><br />THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58272729244464582022016-01-03T18:22:14.365-05:002016-01-03T18:22:14.365-05:00I think that's what's refered to as a stra...I think that's what's refered to as a straw man, Russell.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74252120950949905482016-01-03T17:59:07.683-05:002016-01-03T17:59:07.683-05:00That's interesting Russell, but it doesn't...That's interesting Russell, but it doesn't actually address what Bernard J said (and referenced). BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88369420334183889902016-01-03T17:11:28.808-05:002016-01-03T17:11:28.808-05:00Bernard, do you recall the curve showing the ann...Bernard, do you recall the curve showing the annual rate of anthropogenic species extinction accelerating from ~ 1 a year in 1600, to 100 a year in 1900 , 100,000 in 1999, and going dead vertical to infinity in the year 2000?<br /><br />It originally appeared in the 1992 best-selller, ,<i>The Earth in the Balance,</i> but was redacted from subsequent editions after a letter noting its innumeracy appeared in <i>The Skeptical Inquirer </i>.<br /><br />I doubt Al has ever forgiven me.THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62602211955332909852016-01-03T16:19:58.905-05:002016-01-03T16:19:58.905-05:00@ neverendingaudit
Not exactly, BBD. The CAGW mem...@ neverendingaudit<br /><br /><i>Not exactly, BBD. The CAGW meme Groundskeeper Willie peddles when he ripped off all his shirts is powered by *minimization*.<br /><br />The lukewarm gambit exploits both Skydragons and the CAGW meme to stretch the Overton window and portray its minimization as the middle ground.</i><br /><br />A subtlety that had escaped me, but I think you are right. I like the idea of the Overton Window becoming letterboxed as it is stretched between rhetorical polarities. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90160262477831277532016-01-03T12:44:29.154-05:002016-01-03T12:44:29.154-05:00Dismisaivist claptrap is so lovely when flaunted w...Dismisaivist claptrap is so lovely when flaunted with ignorance, Mr. Fuller.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28943188192910084522016-01-03T12:33:07.582-05:002016-01-03T12:33:07.582-05:00> Denial. Denial is the point [...]
Not exactl...> Denial. Denial is the point [...]<br /><br />Not exactly, BBD. The CAGW meme Groundskeeper Willie peddles when he ripped off all his shirts is powered by <i>minimization</i>. <br /><br />The lukewarm gambit exploits both Skydragons and the CAGW meme to stretch the Overton window and portray its minimization as the middle ground.<br /><br />Mr. T's the new Goldilock.<br /><br />Not all kings of coal may admit to the unsubtlety of the manoeuver.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75199280247493934852016-01-03T11:12:51.758-05:002016-01-03T11:12:51.758-05:00"I consider that pernicious, alarmist claptra..."<i>I consider that pernicious, alarmist claptrap. Perhaps you can cite the papers that the IPCC WG2 and WG3 somehow missed.</i><br /><br />You can consider it to be whatever you like, but it won't change reality. Personally, I prefer to go with my colleagues' work in the scientific literature.<br /><br />There's plenty in the IPCC's bibliography that indicates the vulnerability of species/ecosystems to extreme temperature excursions. If you've not found anything that raises your eyebrows then perhaps you should read the literature more carefully. <br /><br />A seminal work was <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v427/n6970/full/nature02121.html" rel="nofollow">Thomas <i>et al</i></a>. At the time it was questioned by several groups, although <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/full/nature02719.html" rel="nofollow">Thomas <i>et al</i></a> stood by their original work. <a href="http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/3/227" rel="nofollow">Botkin <i>et al</i></a> garnered a bit of publicity several years later with a somewhat tepid challenge of the numbers of Thomas <i>et al</i>, but I don't place much store in the way that they employ the "Quaternary conundrum" as a get-out-of-jail card, not the least because that argument relies on a situation where the global mean temperature fluctuates from cold extremes to Holocene-like mild conditions, where the contemporary warming is going to drive temperatures from the mildness of the actual Holocene optimum to a global warmth not <i>ever</i> experienced by many extant species at any time during their existences. Further, the thermal tolerance/fitness curves for many species are <a href="http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1596/1665" rel="nofollow">skewed</a> <a href="http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/physiological-optima-and-critical-limits-45749376" rel="nofollow">to the</a> <a href="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1765/20131149" rel="nofollow">left</a>, which makes Botkin's <i>et al</i> assumptions all the more problematic.<br /><br />And there's also the small issue of the <i>rate</i> at which humans are warming the globe, quite apart from the actual magnitude of the temperatures involved...<br /><br />Most of the work estimating extinction rates though is likely to be conservative in its conclusions because there are many confounding factors, skewed to a deleterious synergy, that are only starting to be understood. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3311897/" rel="nofollow">Urban <i>et al</i></a> is one example. <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6187/1246752.abstract?sid=3f4c15ad-79f5-4eeb-a618-af62e6fccef2" rel="nofollow">Pimm <i>et al</i></a> touched on some other issues.<br /><br />And of course there remains the issue of <i><b>synergy</b> with the main human impacts</i> that many of us have repeated time and again, informally online (as much as you are loathe to encounter those discussions of such synergy...) and also formally in the scientific literature - for example <a href="http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347%2808%2900195-X?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS016953470800195X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue" rel="nofollow">Brook <i>et al</i></a>.<br /><br />So yes, I emphatically stand my my statements, and if you find that "alarmist" it may simply be a consequence of the fact that the science indicates that the ecophysiological effects of global warming <i>will</i> be alarming - to put it mildly...Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37769790657110537172016-01-03T09:38:17.727-05:002016-01-03T09:38:17.727-05:00Tom
Extinction risk is increased under all RCP sc...Tom<br /><br /><i>Extinction risk is increased under all RCP scenarios, with risk increasing with both magnitude and rate of climate change. Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of climate change (i.e., RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) during the 21st century (medium confidence).</i><br /><br />IPCC agrees with Bernard, not you. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-74620170046288348652016-01-03T03:01:20.917-05:002016-01-03T03:01:20.917-05:00Rural Areas: Major future rural impacts are expect...Rural Areas: Major future rural impacts are expected in the near term and beyond through impacts on water availability and supply, food security, and agricultural incomes, including shifts in production areas of food and non-food crops across the world (high confidence). These impacts are expected to disproportionately affect the welfare of the poor in rural areas, such as female-headed households and those with limited access to land, modern agricultural inputs, infrastructure, and education. Further adaptations for agriculture, water, forestry, and biodiversity can occur through policies taking account of rural decision-making contexts. Trade reform and investment can improve market access for small-scale farms (medium confidence). <br /><br />Extinction risk is increased under all RCP scenarios, with risk increasing<br />with both magnitude and rate of climate change. Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of<br />climate change (i.e., RCP4.5, 6.0, and 8.5) during the 21st century (medium confidence). Lower rates of change (i.e., RCP2.6) will pose fewer<br />problems. See Figure SPM.5. Some species will adapt to new climates. Those that cannot adapt sufficiently fast will decrease in abundance or<br />go extinct in part or all of their ranges. Management actions, such as maintenance of genetic diversity, assisted species migration and dispersal,<br />manipulation of disturbance regimes (e.g., fires, floods), and reduction of other stressors, can reduce, but not eliminate, risks of impacts to<br />terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems due to climate change, as well as increase the inherent capacity of ecosystems and their species to adapt<br />to a changing climate (high confidence).<br /><br />Marine systems: Marine systems<br />Due to projected climate change by the mid 21st century and beyond, global marine-species redistribution and marine-biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). Spatial shifts of marine species due to projected warming will cause high-latitude invasions and high local-extinction rates in the tropics and semi-enclosed seas (medium confidence). Species richness and fisheries catch potential are projected to increase, on average, at mid and high latitudes (high confidence) and decrease at tropical latitudes (medium confidence).<br /><br />So what do they propose? A combination of Pielke and Lomborg:". Increasing efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate<br />change imply an increasing complexity of interactions, particularly at the intersections among water, energy, land use, and biodiversity, but<br />tools to understand and manage these interactions remain limited. Examples of actions with co-benefits include (i) improved energy efficiency<br />and cleaner energy sources, leading to reduced emissions of health-damaging climate-altering air pollutants; (ii) reduced energy and water<br />consumption in urban areas through greening cities and recycling water; (iii) sustainable agriculture and forestry; and (iv) protection of<br />ecosystems for carbon storage and other ecosystem services."<br /><br />https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdfTomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-257208754028981942016-01-03T02:37:03.912-05:002016-01-03T02:37:03.912-05:00"climate change is a monster that has the cap..."climate change is a monster that has the capacity to not only multiply the effects of other impacts many times, if left unaddressed it has the capacity to completely overshadow by itself those other effects."<br /><br />I consider that pernicious, alarmist claptrap. Perhaps you can cite the papers that the IPCC WG2 and WG3 somehow missed.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-82897626358349972352016-01-03T00:09:05.007-05:002016-01-03T00:09:05.007-05:00Dang, Willard gazzumped my ace-up-the-sleeve.
I w...Dang, Willard gazzumped my ace-up-the-sleeve.<br /><br />I was wondering how long Tom Fuller would persist with his preoccupation about my AGW focus before I pointed him to that <a href="https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/biodiversity-extinction-climate-change/#comment-11658" rel="nofollow">post</a>, which pretty much explained it all to him the first time 'round.<br /><br />Oh well, I look forward to whatever gambit TF tries to pull now.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81992313570062481352016-01-02T23:49:53.578-05:002016-01-02T23:49:53.578-05:00"As I've mentioned before, I don't go..."<i>As I've mentioned before, I don't go there.</i>"<br /><br />Fine, that's entirely your prerogative, but if you don't want to <i>see</i> examples of the fact that I actually understand the other environmental issues confronting biodiversity and even talk about them in appropriate contexts, then don't accuse me of ignoring them. Just pop your head back into the sand like that proverbial and unfortunately much-maligned ratite...<br /><br />And do try to grasp the fact that I am speaking about climate change here because <b>it's the primary subject of these types of fora</b>, <i>and</i> because I think that it will subsume all other impacts over time.<br /><br />"<i>Bottom line--you're serving as an enabler for planners and developers destroying habitat by sucking all the eco-oxygen out of the room for your pet little obsession.</i>"<br /><br />Really Fuller, get over yourself. Addressing climate change need not happen to the exclusion of mitigating other human impacts.<br /><br />Perhaps <i>you</i> can't walk and chew gum at the same time but as a society we should very definitely be able to do so. I certainly do - I've variously worked on habitat destruction, wildlife diseases, water pollution, feral pests and habitat destruction in my professional life, and because I believe it to be the most serious problem of all I choose to focus on climate change in my online discourse.<br /><br />The fact is that compared with other human impacts there's a much more concerted campaign to misdirect attention away from action on climate change, when it is in fact the problem that requires the greatest concerted global effort to address. <br /><br />In case you're still not getting the message I'll repeat if for you yet again - climate change's profound import, and the work of people like yourself to distract attention away from addressing it, are the reasons why I focus so much on it. And what's really fascinating is <i>your</i> "pet little obsession" about the fact that I am a staunch supporter of getting the message across that climate change is an existential threat to a coherent global society, and to global biodiversity...<br /><br />"<i>I believe I accurately described it as the straw that will break the camel's back for unfortunate species already over-stressed by the real problems our ecosphere faces...</i>"<br /><br />No, it's not "the straw that will break the camel's back". Such a description implies that it is a small thing that will tip the weight of profoundly larger problems. In the greater scheme of things, <i>which includes the effect of warming over the coming centuries and millennia</i>, climate change is a monster that has the capacity to not only multiply the effects of other impacts many times, if left unaddressed it has the capacity to completely overshadow by itself those other effects.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22375488334600859452016-01-02T23:07:16.399-05:002016-01-02T23:07:16.399-05:00And of course Bernard J already responded:
https:...And of course Bernard J already responded:<br /><br />https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/biodiversity-extinction-climate-change/#comment-11658<br /><br />And Groundskeeper Willie already commented on it at BartV's, so pleading ignorance might be a bit farfetched right now.<br /><br />The audit never ends.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59405037290249710862016-01-02T23:01:54.077-05:002016-01-02T23:01:54.077-05:00> I went over to Bart's [...]
However, Gro...> I went over to Bart's [...]<br /><br />However, Groundskeeper Willie did not come back with a lousy T-shirt with the URL for the comment:<br /><br />https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/biodiversity-extinction-climate-change/#comment-11576<br /><br />He does not mention Rattus Norvegicus and Jeff Harvey.<br /><br />Let's quote another comment <a href="https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/biodiversity-extinction-climate-change/#comment-11601" rel="nofollow">a bit further</a>:<br /><br /><i><br /><br />When it makes Jeff Harvey comments like he does right now, a little bit of [shirt ripping] brings no harm to the thread.<br /><br />When it makes people flame [Groundskeeper Willie], a little bit of [shirt ripping] always derails the discussion, hijacks the thread.<br /><br />Which way obfuscates the absence of the defender (Jeff Id, here) the best?<br /><br />How many times must this go on before people realize that the whole point of [Groundskeeper Willie] is to become the whipping-boy, to report elsewhere how the warmists are bad mouthed, have no manners, and are verging on the hysterical?<br /><br />[Groundskeeper Willie] is playing Poor Me. Wake up.<br /><br /></i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32230645386704175562016-01-02T22:13:37.314-05:002016-01-02T22:13:37.314-05:00Bernard J., that's the third or fourth time yo...Bernard J., that's the third or fourth time you have recommended I visit Deltoid to see something you wrote there.<br /><br />As I've mentioned before, I don't go there. People like BBD hang out there and occasionally escape. If there's something you want me to read, bring it over here.<br /><br />I wrote about the dangers global warming poses to biodiversity 10 years ago. I believe I accurately described it as the straw that will break the camel's back for unfortunate species already over-stressed by the real problems our ecosphere faces as mentioned above--habitat destruction, hunting/fishing, pollution and introduction of alien species.<br /><br />If you want to equate accuracy with trivialization, well that's what I expect from the member of a cult. You're not as stupid as BBD and BP (has anyone ever seen them in the same room?), but that's not saying much.<br /><br />Bottom line--you're serving as an enabler for planners and developers destroying habitat by sucking all the eco-oxygen out of the room for your pet little obsession. You make it more likely that there will be no biome left for climate change to screw up.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65122148195926750442016-01-02T14:11:14.452-05:002016-01-02T14:11:14.452-05:00What's your point Tom Fuller?
Denial. Denial ...<i>What's your point Tom Fuller?</i><br /><br />Denial. Denial is the point, Bernard. <br /><br />Denial of the seriousness of the threat posed to biodiverstity <i>later this century and beyond</i> by AGW is Tom's default state. Denial is what Tom does, even while screeching that he doesn't and tearing his shirt off. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29995199148767296742016-01-02T10:43:00.464-05:002016-01-02T10:43:00.464-05:00What's your point Tom Fuller?I've already ...What's your point Tom Fuller?<br><br>I've already said above and elsewhere, and many times in the past, that the climatic impacts of global warming are largely yet to be realised, and the currently manifested effects are accumulating as <i>extinction debt</i>.<br><br>And I also said that the amount of extinction already attributed to human-caused global warming is more than I expected, especially given that extinction as a phenomenon is such that for every extinction that we detect there are many that are not detected.<br><br>Further, the non-climate-related human impacts on the planet's biodiversity have been operating for longer than has any appreciable climate change, and they operate more directly on species and ecosystems.<br><br>I am <i>very</i> well aware of the suite of causes of extinction to date, and if you visited the Tim Curtin threads on Deltoid you'd know this. It's also one of the reasons that I linked to Hoffman <i>et al</i> at Bart's in the first place...<br><br>None of this changes the fact that global warming is going to be a huge hit on planetary biodiversity further into this century, and over coming centuries, both through direct effects and through exacerbation of other non-climate-change impacts. Yes, those impacts must be addressed - I've said so repeated and it's been a part of my work for years - but if global warming is not <b>also</b> addressed, urgently and comprehensively, then most of the other moves to reverse human impacts on the ecology of the planet will have been for naught.<br><br>And if you have a bee in your bonnet about my focus on global warming on these threads, why should not the rest of us have a hive of bees in <i>our</i> respective bonnnets about your persistent indulgence in attempting to <i>trivialise</i> global warming, especially when doing such relies on dissemblance and misrepresentation of the scientific facts as best as they are understood?Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67505619928398298852016-01-02T02:20:22.807-05:002016-01-02T02:20:22.807-05:00Bernard J, I went over to Bart's site to one o...Bernard J, I went over to Bart's site to one of the threads on biodiversity and looked at our exchanges.<br /><br />Just for grins, I thought I'd remind you that you never responded to sidd's attribution for species loss taken from a paper that you originally cited (Hoffman et al):<br /><br />Mr. Bernard J. kindly posted a link to Hoffman et al. In the paper.From the abstract:<br /><br />“…main drivers of biodiversity loss in these groups: agricultural expansion, logging, overexploitation, and invasive alien species. ”<br /><br />To check Mr. Fuller’s guess about 1% loss to climate change:<br /><br />fig S7 allow one to estimate the fraction of deteriorating species (of the IUCN list of 25780 endangered species) due to climate change or extreme weather and fire regime changes, as well as several other factors:<br /><br />For birds: total number of deteriorating species=433, those due to climate change or severe weather, 8, those due to fire regime change, 1<br />The corresponding numbers<br />For mammals:: 171,3,7<br />For amphibians: 456, 5,1<br /><br />Slightly above 1%.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39565990323511146072015-12-31T13:32:41.122-05:002015-12-31T13:32:41.122-05:00David B. Benson said...
" Towards the end of ... David B. Benson said...<br />" Towards the end of his life Sir Karl modified his position. Even so, what he wrote helped to see that psychoanalysis was unscientific along with phrenology. "<br /><br /><br />Could this explain the embrace of former Freudians as psychological strategists by [ insert name of movement here ]?THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1549198542803158562015-12-31T13:29:43.740-05:002015-12-31T13:29:43.740-05:00"But people who are used to it don't thin...<i>"But people who are used to it don't think it's Armageddon."</i>, well ibbd, but a happy and safe 2016 wished from Gouda, The Netherlands for all the bunnies out there.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33722609628143352952015-12-31T11:51:47.627-05:002015-12-31T11:51:47.627-05:00"Speaking of which, Bernard J. I well remembe..."<i>Speaking of which, Bernard J. I well remember our interactions (almost called it a conversation, but your end was just a monologue) at Bart's. No, you didn't do more than nod your head at habitat loss, introduction of alien species, over-hunting/fishing and pollution. It was all CO2, only CO2, 24 hours a day.</i>"<br /><br />Fuller, you can assert it but it doesn't make it true. <br /><br />As you're hard of learning I'll repeat two points for you. First, I have on many occasions discussed factors other than global warming in the context of damage to the environment. Deltoid in particular is <i>littered</i> with such discussions, and for real giggles you should read the Tim Curtin threads and get his take on the apparent non-damaging wonders of palm oil plantations.<br /><br />Secondly, these forums are generally focussed on human-caused climate change, and that is why I focus on them here. I have spent many years working to address other impacts on biodiversity (ferals and habitat destruction in particular) but that work is not the subject on these onlime conversations.<br /><br />And I'll throw in a third issue for you, just in case you're still not understanding why I speak so much about global warming. Increasing the temperature of the planet by even a degree profoundly exacerbates the other pressures on biodiversity: several degrees of warming are going to be catastrophic for many species and ecosystems, and 4-6+ degrees warming <i>will</i> cause profound damage to a large chunk of our biodiversity, and especially to our vertebrate biodiversity. Therefore mitigating global warming will address both the synergistic harm that it wreaks in concert with the non-climate damage to the environment, and it will address the direct effect that it will have on species and ecosystem - an effect that, if warming is not properly addressed for a few more decades, will make all other human impacts pale by comparison.<br /><br />Finally, there are plenty of others online who discuss elsewhere other human impacts (even myself, in some cases), and I see no need to raise those issues here beyond the extent to which I do when the topics become germane to the climate discussion.<br /><br />Yes, I focus on global warming here - for good reason. I know that you don't want the world to address fossil carbon emissions because it clashes with your ideology, but I also know the damage that those carbon emissions are causing and will continue to cause. If this shits you... well, petal, just get over yourself: global warming is a profoundly serious problem, and if the likes of you get your way and we don't address it post haste the planet will within decades be committed to a future where down the track it is screwed for human society and for a large chunk of life on Earth.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.com